Customer satisfaction with energy supplier complaints ... · satisfaction with the way their...

Customer satisfaction with energy supplier complaints handling 2018

Research Report

Prepared for Ofgem

June 2018


1 © Quadrangle 2018

Contents

1 Executive summary .................................................................................................... 2

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 9

3 Complainant profiles ................................................................................................ 12

4 Satisfaction with complaints handling ................................................................... 19

5 The complaint journey .............................................................................................. 22

6 Impact of complaint handling .................................................................................. 50

7 Key drivers of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with complaints handling ................ 53

8 Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................................... 61


© Quadrangle 2018 2

1 Executive summary

1.1 Context and approach

Research background

Ofgem is the independent gas and electricity markets regulator for Great Britain. Its principle

objective is to protect the interests of existing and future electricity and gas customers. In

2008, Ofgem set the Complaints Handling Standards1 (CHS) for all suppliers providing

energy to domestic (private households) and/or micro-business customers (defined as a

business with up to 9 employees with a turnover no greater than £2 million annually2). The

CHS are a set of regulations that suppliers must follow when responding to and dealing with

customer complaints; a complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction with the

service received.

Ofgem has carried out research since the CHS were introduced to assess how well

suppliers have been meeting the standards. Research in 2016 found that satisfaction with

the way complaints had been handled had decreased and Ofgem asked suppliers to review

their processes and improve their services to generate positive change for complainants.

This research was commissioned to monitor any changes in complainants’ experiences.

Research aims and approach

The primary aim of this research is to measure domestic and micro-business complainants’

satisfaction with the way their complaints had been handled by their supplier. This includes

establishing the extent to which satisfaction levels have changed since 2016, identifying the

key drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and identifying evidence of good practice and

areas in need of improvement.

The research was carried out in February through to April 2018, with 3,080 domestic and

703 micro-business complainants who had lodged complaints with their supplier in late

20173. Interviews were carried out using a structured questionnaire, conducted by telephone

and lasted on average 18-21 minutes. Data were weighted to reflect the share of complaints

in the market. It is important to stress that research findings reflect the complainants’

experience of the complaints handling process.

Who are the complainants

Research participants were complainants of the following:

▪ The six largest domestic and micro-business suppliers: British Gas, SSE, EDF, E.ON,

ScottishPower and npower; and

1 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2008/07/complaint-handling-standards-decision-july-2008.pdf 2 Ofgem defines a non-domestic customer as a micro business if they meet one of the following criteria: 1) they

employ fewer than 10 employees and have an annual turnover or balance sheet no greater than €2 million, or 2) use no more than100,000 kWh of electricity per year or no more than 293,000 kWh of gas per year. For the purposes of this research, energy usage was not factored into the definition. 3 Note on Domestic complainants: Complainants to OVO raised complaints between 25 January and 2 March 2018

rather than in late 2017. Full details are available in the Technical Report.



▪ The largest of the medium-sized suppliers: First Utility, Utility Warehouse, OVO, Utilita

and Co-op Energy (domestic complainants only), as well as Opus (micro-business

complainants only).

The most common cause for complaint among both domestic and micro-business

complainants was billing, and the vast majority of complaints were made by telephone. Just

over half of all complainants stated that their complaint was resolved at the time of interview

(min. of 8 weeks after the complaint had been raised).

1.2 Key research findings

Overall levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Satisfaction with complaints handling has improved significantly since 2016, both among

domestic and micro-business complainants. In the domestic market in 2016, just over a

quarter of complainants (27%) were satisfied with the way their complaint had been

handled, which rose significantly to a third (32%) in 2018. This was met with a significant

decline in the proportion of complainants who were dissatisfied, though more still remain

dissatisfied (57% in 2018) than satisfied.

▪ The greatest improvements in satisfaction were reported among those who complained

to npower and ScottishPower (the two worst performers among the largest suppliers in

2016) which shows the impact of the concentrated effort by those suppliers to improve

complainants experience following an intervention from Ofgem in 2016.

▪ Among the medium-sized suppliers, complainants to First Utility reported significantly

higher levels of satisfaction compared to previous years.

▪ However, there is still a long way to go as just under 2 in 3 complainants to those

suppliers were dissatisfied with how their complaint had been handled.

The improvement is similar in the micro-business market, where satisfaction rose from 21%

in 2016 to 28% in 2018 and was met with a similarly significant decline in the proportion of

micro-business complainants who were dissatisfied, though the majority (60%) remained

dissatisfied.

Experiences at different stages in the complaints handling journey

Each stage of the complaints process was investigated in detail to understand what the

process was like from the complainants’ perspective, and what impact each element had on

overall satisfaction with complaints handling. The questions asked within each stage

reflected the requirements of the Complaint Handling Standards (CHS). Figure 1 over the

page presents the complaints journey model used for the purposes of this study.



Figure 1: The complaint journey.

▪ Start of the complaints journey

The start of the process worked well for most complainants. Supplier contact details

continued to be easy to find for the majority (76% among domestic complainants and

78% among micro-business complainants – this was consistent with 2016). As in

previous years, bills and statements were the main source of this information, but other

forms of communications from the supplier (e.g. app based information) were becoming

more commonly used as sources of contact details.

Registering the complaint was easy for most (57% among domestic complainants and

54% among micro- business complainants), however, 1 in 3 still found it difficult (34%

domestic and 35% micro-business) – this was consistent with 2016. Among those who

found it difficult to register their complaint, the reasons for this focused around not being

able to get through to the right person or department who could help them – this is the

case in both, the domestic, and micro-business markets, but a significantly bigger

problem for domestic complainants in 2018 than it was in 2016. Understanding of the

complaint at that stage of the process was not a barrier to having it registered (though is

seems to have elongated the complaints process for some complainants who said they

haven’t reached a resolution yet at the time of interview for this reason). Among micro-

business complainants, the recognition of the problem being a genuine issue that the

supplier needed to address was a significant barrier to having it registered as a

complaint, it was more of an issue for them in 2018 compared with 2016.

Despite a positive start to the process for more than half of complainants, in the majority

of cases, suppliers failed to set expectations for the rest of the process for

complainants. There has been little change in this since 2016 despite this being flagged

by Ofgem as one of the key areas needing improvement. Only around half reported

having been told what steps would be taken to resolve their complaint (domestic 54%;

Independent advice can

be sought at any point

Finding

contact details

Lodging

complaint

Registration /

confirmation of complaint

Subsequent contact

with supplier to reach a problem

resolution

Referral to Energy

Ombudsman

Confirmation of

process / next steps, and timescales

Escalation

Formal

resolution confirmation

Resolution

Explanation of what

went wrong

Apology

Compensation

Start of the journeySubsequent

contactEscalation Resolution Closure and impact

COMPLAINT JOURNEY STAGES:

STEPS IN EACH STAGE:



micro-business 51%), and fewer, around a third, said they have been given a resolution

date (domestic 33%; micro-business 31%). absence of this information leaves

complainants to set their own expectation for what the process will look like and how

long it will take, which doesn’t always match the reality, and can lead to significant

disappointment among complainants when those expectations aren’t met.

▪ Subsequent contact

Previous waves of the research have shown that ongoing communication is of

paramount importance to the complaint process as its presence ensured that

complainants are not in the dark about their situation and have confidence that their

case is being dealt with. There have been some improvements in this area, with

suppliers being significantly better at getting back to complainants when promised or

agreed compared to 2016 (domestic 36% in 2016 vs. 39% in 2018; micro-business 32%

in 2016 vs. 42% in 2018), however, consistently with 2016, only a quarter said that the

supplier kept them updated on the progress of their case without being prompted to do

so (domestic 25% in 2016 vs. 25% in 2018; micro-business 22% in 2016 vs. 26% in

2018).

Consequently, complainants chased suppliers for information, however, the proportion

who say they have done this has decreased significantly since 2016 (domestic 57% in

2016 vs. 49% in 2018; micro-business 66% in 2016 vs. 57% in 2018), which was

potentially connected to the suppliers being more reliable and getting back to

complainants when agreed.

▪ Escalation and third party involvement

While there have been many improvements in how complaints were handled in 2018

compared to previous years, few complainants received information about alternative

resolution routes. Feeling like there is no other way to move the process along (should

this be necessary) could cause stress, so sharing information about alternative

resolution routes (or where to find it) with complainants is important to reducing levels of

stress associated with the complaints process.

Despite only around a quarter (domestic 22%; micro-business 25%) being told that they

could escalate their complaint to be dealt with by a more senior member of staff, around

a third of complainants had done so (domestic 35%; micro-business 36%). The main

reasons for this focused around slow and poor quality response from staff, and in some

cases, lack of understanding of the issue.

▪ Resolution

Just under half of complaints were considered unresolved by complainants (domestic

42%; micro-business 47%) and the main reason for this was the lack of communication

from suppliers confirming otherwise.

The resolution gap has remained relatively steady since 2009, with 40% of the domestic

complaints (and 43% of micro-business complaints) considered resolved by the

suppliers being considered as unresolved by the complainants themselves. Among

domestic complainants, the absence of communication is the main reason for this.

Micro-business complainants said they were still experiencing the same problem,



meaning that from their perspective, the issue hadn’t been fully addressed and dealt

with despite the supplier marking their case as resolved on their system.

▪ Closure and impact of the complaints process

Just over half of complainants said their complaints had been resolved (domestic 58%;

micro-business 53%) and reported resolution times have shortened compared to 2016.

However, fewer than 1 in 5 complainants (domestic 18%; micro-business 16%) reported

receiving resolutions timings at the start of the process which matched how long the

complaints ultimately took to resolve.

Expectations of what complainants would receive were largely met, with most

complainants with resolved cases saying they received at least a rectification of the

problem. However, fewer (around 1 in 3) received an explanation of the problem, which

was something most expected to receive. In fact, those who received an explanation of

the problem were more satisfied with the entire process than those who hadn’t received

it (consistently with drivers analysis which shows that not receiving an explanation

drives satisfaction with the process down), thus becoming an important step for the

suppliers to fulfil to ensure the complainants expectations and needs are met.

Experiences of vulnerable complainants (domestic market only)

Vulnerable complainants’ experience was comparable to that of other complainants,

however, they were significantly more satisfied with how their complaint had been handled

compared to the domestic market average (36% vs. 32% average). They were also

significantly less likely to be dissatisfied with their experience than the market average (52%

vs. 57% average). Nevertheless, it is important to point out that similarly to the market

average, vulnerable complainants were more likely to be dissatisfied than satisfied with how

their complaint had been handled.

Consistently with the market, they found the contact details to raise their complaint easily in

most cases (though they were more likely to use bills and account statements as the source

of that information than the rest of the market), and most found their complaint easy to

register with their supplier. Similarly to the other complainants, their expectations weren’t

correctly set at the start of the process, with around half being told what steps would be

taken to resolve their complaint (51%) and around a third (30%) being given a resolution

date.

Ongoing communication, and being kept updated on the progress of their case, are in need

of significant improvement, consistently with the market average. However, marginally fewer

vulnerable complainants compared to the market average (32% vs. 35% average) escalated

their complaint to a more senior member of staff. Reasons for escalation mirrored the

market average (taking too long, poor quality response).

The proportions of vulnerable complainants who report their complaint as resolved and

unresolved was consistent with the market average. Among those with unresolved cases,

lack of communication from suppliers to say otherwise was the main reason why (with 53%

of vulnerable complainants with unresolved cases having said this, vs. 45% average). For

those who said their complaint has been resolved, fewer than 1 in 5 reported having

received accurate resolution timescales, consistently with the market average.



Based on the experiences in the process and perceptions of staff, both of which were

comparable with the market average, it is difficult to pin point what’s driving the higher levels

of satisfaction with complaint handling among vulnerable complainants – perhaps being

given additional support to help them with resolving their queries on an ongoing basis,

rather than specifically during the complaints process, contributes to a higher level of overall

satisfaction with interactions with their supplier.

1.3 Key drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Domestic complainants

▪ Satisfaction: The drivers of satisfaction this year were broadly consistent with 2016,

focusing primarily on the experiences early on in the process. Easily finding the right

contact details and being greeted by polite and professional staff who told them what

steps would be taken to get the complaint resolved (experienced by just over half of

domestic complainants) in clear and understandable language set the right tone for the

rest of the process. It was the smoothness of the early interactions that helped uplift

overall satisfaction with how the complaint has been handled.

Reducing effort the complainant has to make also contributes to increasing overall

satisfaction with complaint handling; this includes providing the complainants with

information about what is happening with their complaint on an ongoing basis, to help

reduce their need to chase for updates. There have been significant improvements in

suppliers getting back to complainants when agreed. However, further improvements

are recommended to ensure that complainants’ experience continues to improve, and

satisfaction levels continue to rise.

▪ Dissatisfaction: There were many more drivers of dissatisfaction than satisfaction. This

is expected given that complainants are more likely to be dissatisfied than satisfied

(despite the significant uplift in overall satisfaction levels).

The main contributors to high levels of dissatisfaction with complaint handling were long

resolution periods (though these have started to improve in 2018, but further

improvements are needed), and not being kept up to date with the progress of the case.

Furthermore, suppliers not providing complainants with a clear view of how long the

resolution will take continued to be a problem area in 2018. Lack of information on what

they should expect, and when, could cause anxiety and lead complainants to set their

own expectations, which doesn’t always reflect the reality of the situation, particularly if

the issue they have raised is complex.

Closure was also a problem area for many complainants. The main issue was a lack of

an explanation of the problem upon resolution, as well as a lack of an apology for the

issue occurring in the first place. Both help to reassure the complainant that the issue

has been dealt with and is unlikely to happen again. Lack of an explanation may leave

the complainant feeling that the problem could very easily come back as they have no

reassurance that it has been fully addressed.



Micro-business complainants

▪ Satisfaction: As with domestic complainants, being provided with information about the

steps that would be taken to resolve their complaint in clear language was one of the

key areas that need to be built on to improve complainants’ experience, and through

that, increase satisfaction with complaint handling. Receiving a resolution confirmation

at the end of the process had a similarly positive effect.

▪ Dissatisfaction: The key drivers of dissatisfaction among micro-business complainants

were similar to those within the domestic market. They focused around what

complainants considered to be unacceptably long resolution periods, and a lack of

ongoing communication or communication about likely timescales. This created an

information gap that micro-business complainants filled by repeatedly chasing suppliers

for information.

This became particularly problematic when they dealt with multiple members of staff,

who often appeared unhelpful and not taking the complaint seriously enough. The issue

with staff seemed to be permeating the entire journey for them – for example, micro-

business complainants were finding it more difficult to register their complaint because it

was not being acknowledged or understood when it is first raised.

1.4 Evidence of good practice and areas for improvement

Good practice

Satisfaction was driven by professional staff encountered at the start of the journey

and more consistency with getting back to complainants when agreed. Staff played an

important role in the complaints handling process. While there are still many improvements

to be made in this area, professionalism in how complaints were dealt with was a key driver

of satisfaction, together with staff being more reliable than in 2016 and getting back to

complainants when agreed. This helped reduce the information vacuum, and effort

complainants needed to make, to get their complaint resolved. This treatment needs to be

injected further into the process more consistently to drive satisfaction with complaint

handling upwards.

Areas for improvement

Dissatisfaction was driven by a lack of ongoing communication, made worse by lack

of clarity around resolution timescales. There have been some significant improvements

in how complaints are handled, however, the areas for improvement remain consistent with

2016. There is still an issue with a lack of ongoing (and proactive) communication from

suppliers. This was the main driver or the resolution gap and is exacerbated by lack of

clarity around resolution timescales. This was not helped by some staff seeming unhelpful

and unconcerned by the complainants’ cases when contacted.

Furthermore, upon resolution, complainants expected to receive an explanation of the

problem, and a lack thereof further contributed to an information vacuum potentially created

earlier in the process, when ongoing communication was lacking. The lack of ‘proper’

closure gave the complainants little or no confidence that the complaint had been fully

resolved and the issue won’t happen again.



2 Introduction

2.1 Research context

Ofgem is the independent gas and electricity markets regulator for Great Britain. It has a

principle objective to protect the interests of existing and future electricity and gas

customers. It has set key consumer outcomes that it requires energy suppliers to achieve.

These include standards prescribing better quality of service and fair treatment, as well as

listening to consumers to ensure that their experiences in the energy market are

understood. As part of that, Ofgem is committed to monitoring supplier performance against

the regulations it sets for handling complaints. By definition, complaints are ‘any expressions

of dissatisfaction with the service received’ made by consumers. These expressions of

dissatisfaction should be logged by the supplier as ‘a complaint’ and appropriately dealt with

thereafter as such.

Ofgem’s Complaints Handling Standards4 (CHS) for all suppliers providing energy to

domestic (private households) and/or micro-business customers (defined as a business with

up to 9 employees with a turnover no greater than £2 million annually) include requirements

on suppliers to use accessible language, offer a range of channels for lodging and

managing complaints, provide a clear pathway from complaint to resolution, and provide a

clear route for redress should the complaint not be resolved to the consumer’s satisfaction.

All complaint cases must be logged in written electronic form and the process of complaint

handling has to be readily available to consumers on the supplier website (and they must be

informed about the existence of the procedures). Suppliers are required to treat all

consumers fairly; the standards apply to domestic and micro-business5 complainants.

Research to measure how well suppliers have been meeting the standards has been

conducted since 2008, when they were introduced. Five waves of research have been

conducted prior to this survey, with this wave being the 6th.

In 2014 (4th wave) a number of issues contributed to a fall in satisfaction with complaint

handling, including speed of resolution, lack of ownership and staff’s inability to make

decisions at point of contact, as well as poor ongoing communication. Communications

were sent to suppliers to outline areas that needed improvement.

The 2016 wave (5th) identified a further decrease in satisfaction with the way suppliers were

handling complaints. This decrease was found among domestic and micro-business

complainants alike. The issues which affected this were largely similar to those in 2014:

Resolution periods were seen as unacceptably long, and the lack of ongoing communication

left complainants in the dark about their situation. They were left to set their own

expectations of what should happen, which was often far from reality and exacerbated the

already negative perception of the situation. Thus, many complainants chased suppliers for

information, which meant speaking to multiple staff who didn’t always have access to the full

complaint history – this was seen as unhelpful and was contributing to higher levels of

stress and consequently, complainants voting with their feet and switching suppliers. In

4 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2008/07/complaint-handling-standards-decision-july-2008.pdf 5 Micro-businesses are businesses with up to 9 employees.



response, Ofgem took a number of direct and indirect actions against suppliers to help

improve the situation for complainants and issued further guidance to suppliers to

encourage them to more effectively address the areas in need of improvement.

This wave of research was commissioned to assess how well suppliers responded to the

call for improvements, and to monitor any changes in complainants’ experiences.

2.2 Research aims and objectives

The primary aim of this research was to measure domestic and micro-business

complainants’ satisfaction with the way their complaints have been handled by their

energy supplier. Specifically, the research set out to:

1. Gauge complainants’ satisfaction with suppliers’ complaints handling at market (and

supplier) level, and understand the key drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction;

2. Identify areas of good practice in the application of the Complaints Handling Standards;

3. Identify areas of weakness in suppliers’ complaints handling process, and determine

priority areas that require action; and

4. Assess the extent to which suppliers’ handling of complaints and complainants’

satisfaction with this has changed since 2016, revealing areas where improvements

have been made or areas where they have remained steady or declined.

2.3 Research methodology

A summary of the research methodology is shown in Figure 2. Further details about the

methodology can be found in the Technical Appendix, available as a separate document.

Figure 2: Summary of research methodology.6

6 Note on Domestic medium-sized supplier sample: OVO complainants raised complaints between 25 January and

2 March 2018. Full details are available in the Technical Appendix.

MICRO-BUSINESS COMPLAINANTS

Method Telephone (CATI)

Fieldwork

period

February to March 2018

Interview

length

17-19 minutes on average

Who we

spoke to

703 micro-business complainants

Sample Provided by suppliers

(complaints made in Nov or Dec

2015)

Quotas 6 largest suppliers

1 medium-sized supplier

Weighting Share of complaints in Nov/Dec ‘17

(number of micro-business

complaints received by each

supplier as a proportion of the total

number of micro-business

complaints received)

DOMESTIC COMPLAINANTS

Method Telephone (CATI)

Fieldwork

period

February to April 2018

Interview

length

21 minutes on average

Who we

spoke to

3,080 domestic complainants

Sample Provided by suppliers

(complaints made between 16-31

Dec 2017 for the largest suppliers

and in Nov or Dec 2017 for mid-sized

suppliers)

Quotas 6 largest suppliers

5 medium-sized suppliers

Weighting Share of complaints in Nov/Dec ‘17

(number of domestic complaints

received by each supplier as a

proportion of the total number of

domestic complaints received by all

domestic suppliers surveyed)



2.4 Reporting conventions

When interpreting the data presented in this report, please note that:

• Results may not sum to 100% due to rounding and/or due to participants being able to

select more than one answer to a question.

• Data presented in this report is from a sample of complainants rather than the total

population. This means the results are subject to sampling error. Differences between

suppliers or other sub-groups, and between different waves of the research, are only

commented on if they are statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.

This means there is no more than a 5 per cent chance that any reported differences are

not real but a consequence of chance/ sampling error.7

• Statistically significant differences are indicated on each figure with arrows, as

detailed below, and commented on where appropriate. Typically, the larger the base

size (the number of respondents answering the question), the more likely it is that any

differences observed are statistically significant. Results in each section of this report

are presented for the current wave of the survey in the first instance. Comparisons are

made with 2016 (and in some cases earlier years) to establish what has/ has not

changed over time.

• Results represent the experience from the complainants’ perspective; it is their

perception and recall of their experience that is reported.

7 Strictly speaking, calculations of statistical significance apply only to samples that have been selected using a

probability sampling design. However, in practice, it is reasonable to assume that these calculations provide a good indication of significant differences for quota sampling (as used for this research).

Significantly higher / lower

in 2018 vs. 2016

This indicates significant difference (at 95% level

of significance) between results reported in 2016 and 2018 (the most recent wave)



3 Complainant profiles

3.1 Demographic and firmographic profiles of complainants

The complainants are a representative sample of all consumers who had contacted their

supplier to ‘express dissatisfaction’ in late 2017.8 The profiles of the domestic and micro-

business complainants who participated in the survey are shown in Figures 3 and 4 below.

Figure 3: Domestic complainant profile.

Base: Domestic complainants (3,080).

Figure 4: Micro-business complainant profile (up to 9 employees).

Bases: Micro-business complainants (703).

8 To reiterate, complaints are ‘any expressions of dissatisfaction with the service received’ made by consumers

and for this research, the complaints were made between 16-31 December 2018 for the largest domestic suppliers and in November-December 2018 for all medium-sized suppliers (except for complainants to OVO who raised complaints between 25 January and 2 March 2018) and all micro-business suppliers.

No. of employees

35%16%

Sole Trader

1-4

5-9

Energy

management & procurement responsibility

Full

responsibility64%

Joint / some

responsibility27%

No responsibility 9%

6%

11%

52%

Refused /DK

Other

QuarterlyDD

On receiptof bill

Monthly DD

Gas 11%

Electricity 77%

Dual fuel 13%

Fuel type

Payment type

Sector

Annual turnover

10%

2%

7%

7%

8%

10%

11%

12%

14%

20%

Other

Public services& Government

Construction &Manufacturing

Not for profit

Farming

Leisure

Professional

Catering

Property

Retail

Role in the business

Owner / Partner / CEO 45%

Financial Director /

Director26%

Manager level employee 11%

Office manager 5%

Other employee 13%

(including garages)

28%

13%

34%

15%

11%

£0k-£25k

£25k-50k

£50k-250k

£250k-500k

£500k+

49%

19%

12%

3%

5%

3%

5%

9%

16%

59%

Refused /DK

Other

Paymentcard

QuarterlyDD

On receiptof bill

PPM

MonthlyDD

18-24 3%

25-34 12%

35-44 15%

45-54 18%

55-64 19%

65-74 19%

75+ 10%

Refused 3%

Gas 17%

Electricity 32%

Dual fuel 51%

Age

AB 21%

C1 24%

C2 15%

DE 28%

Refused 12%

SEG

Frequency of internet use

Ethnicity

White/White

British85%

Black/African/

Caribbean/ Black British

4%

Asian/Asian

British4%

Mixed 1%

Other 2%

Refused 4%

Fuel type

Payment type

Vulnerable groups

57% 21%5% 3% 11% 3%

Severaltimes a

day

Roughlyeveryday

At leastonce aweek

Once amonth or

less

Never Refused

Has a long term

disability25%

65 years old or older 28%

Has PPM or other

short-term or pre-payment scheme

19%

Socio-economic

group E20%

No access to internet 7%

English not spoken at

home4%

PSR * 30%

* The Priority Services Register

is available for consumers in

vulnerable situations. Being on

the register entitles consumers

to additional support services

such as quarterly meter reads,

accessible bills and priority in

case of a power cut



3.1.1 Complainants in vulnerable situations

Ofgem’s responsibility to protect the interests of energy consumers includes those who are

in vulnerable circumstances (this relates to domestic consumers only). Vulnerable

circumstances arise when a consumer’s personal circumstances and characteristics,

combined with aspects of the market, create situations where they are either:

▪ Significantly less able, than a typical consumer, to protect or represent their interests in

the energy market, and/ or

▪ Significantly more likely, than a typical consumer, to suffer detriment or that detriment is

likely to be more substantial.

More specifically, this would apply to some consumers of pensionable age, those who have

a disability, are chronically ill, have a mental health condition which impacts their ability to

e.g. understand their bill, if they live in rural areas, are on low incomes or in any other

vulnerable situation which means that they need additional support (on an ongoing basis or

for a limited time). Vulnerability can be transient as personal circumstances change.

Furthermore, a vulnerable consumer is not vulnerable because of who they are, but

because of the circumstances they are in, which is what may prevent them from being able

to fully protect or represent their interests in the energy market.9

Energy suppliers have the responsibility to ‘seek to identify’ each domestic customer in a

vulnerable situation, to be able to address their needs appropriately.10 This means

identifying where individual circumstances create barriers to accessing services in the

energy market and having a strategy to help consumers overcome those barriers.

Vulnerable customers are often included in the Priority Services Register (PSR) – it is a free

service provided by suppliers and network operators to customers in need. If eligible, and

the customer agrees to be registered, a customer will qualify for supplementary services

such as suppliers providing support to help the customer identify someone acting on behalf

of their supplier, e.g. a password or showing an agreed identification card if visiting the

customer’s home, among a number of other services.11 This level of support is particularly

important in relation to raising a complaint, which can have a financial and/ or emotional

impact on the complainants.

Figure 5 over the page presents the % of complainants registered on PSR among those

who raised complaints/ expressed dissatisfaction in late 201712 as identified by the

suppliers.

9 Ofgem Customer Vulnerability Strategy, published July 2013. 10 For more information on the Standards of Conduct, see Ofgem Licence guide: Standards of Conduct, published

October 2017. 11 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/extra-help-energy-services/priority-

services-register-people-need 12 With the exception of OVO where complaints were raised between 25 January and 2 March 2018 – see

Technical Report for details.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2013/07/consumer-vulnerability-strategy_0.pdf

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2017/10/standards_of_conduct.pdf

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/extra-help-energy-services/priority-services-register-people-need

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/extra-help-energy-services/priority-services-register-people-need



Figure 5: Vulnerable (PSR) complainants by supplier – complaints made in late 201713 to

domestic suppliers only.

Data provided by suppliers in response to Ofgem RFI on complaints made in late 2017.

Base: Domestic complainants (All: 3,080; Largest: 2,077, Medium: 1,003; BG: 334; SSE: 356; EDF: 325 E.ON: 421; ScottishPower: 356; npower: 285; Utilita: 245; Co-op: 142; OVO: 106; Utility Warehouse:130; First Utility: 380).

In the 2018 wave of the research, suppliers were asked to provide this information to help

assess whether PSR complainants are receiving an adequate level of service. This

information was not available in 2016, thus direct comparison is not possible. Therefore,

throughout this report, the experience of complainants registered on the PSR is evaluated in

relation to the 2018 market average. They are referred to as vulnerable complainants

throughout the report.

3.2 Profile of domestic and micro-business complaints

Participants were complainants to the six largest suppliers (domestic and micro-

business) and six medium-sized suppliers (five domestic only; one micro-business

only).

Consistently with previous waves of the research, collectively, these suppliers comprised

the majority of the domestic and micro-business energy supply markets.14 Each supplier’s

share of complaints is presented in Figure 6 over the page. Data were weighted to represent

each supplier’s share of complaints in the market in November and December 2017.11 More

details on this are available in the Technical Appendix included as a separate document.

13 With the exception of OVO where complaints were raised between 25 January and 2 March 2018 – see

Technical Appendix for details. 14 Estimated.

29%

13%12%6%8%

22%

40%41%

18%

29%

40%

19%

32%30%

Utilit

a

Co

-op

OV

O

First

Utilit

y

Utilit

yW

are

ho

use

Sco

ttis

hP

ow

er

ED

F

Bri

tish

Ga

s

np

ow

er

E.O

N

SS

E

Med

ium

su

pplie

rs

La

rge

st

su

pplie

rs

Tota

l

Domestic



Figure 6: Complaints distribution across domestic and micro-business suppliers.

QS6. And which supplier did you make this complaint to?

Bases: Domestic complainants (All: 3,080), Micro-business complainants (All: 703).

As in previous years, in 2018 the majority of complaints were raised by telephone,

with 83% of domestic and 83% of micro-business complainants having used this channel

(compared to 84% and 79% respectively in 2016). Only 10% of domestic and 12% of micro-

business complainants contacted their supplier by email (compared to 9% and 17%

respectively in 2016). Other forms of initial contact (e.g. web chat or web forms) were

seldom used.

Billing remained the most common reason for complaining, though significantly less of

a problem than in 2016. While half (51%) of domestic complaints were in relation to billing

problems, this is a significant decrease from 56% in 2016. The decrease in micro-business

billing complaints was also significant and even more substantial, falling from 70% to 59%.

Issues related to gas and electricity meters (not smart or pre-payment meters), remained

the second most common problem area (21% among domestic and 25% among micro-

business complainants). These included meter accuracy issues or problems related to

installation or removal of a meter.

Figure 7 over the page provides details on reasons for complaints being raised in 2017.

Domestic

Micro-business8%

8%

11%

6%

26%

8%

33%

1%

1%

2%

3%

6%

9%

13%

14%

15%

18%

19%

Opus

Utility Warehouse

Co-op

OVO

First Utility

Utilita

npower

EDF

SSE

British Gas

ScottishPower

E.ON

Largest

suppliers

Medium

suppliers



Figure 7: Nature of the complaint.

QS7. What was your complaint to [named supplier] about?

Bases: Domestic (All 2016: 3,049; All 2018: 3,080; BG: 334; EDF: 325 E.ON: 421; npower: 285; Utility Warehouse: 130; OVO: 106, Utilita: 245; Co-op: 142), Micro-business (All 2016: 468; All 2018: 703; E.ON: 191).

Problems concerning smart meters, tariff changes and account management were

significantly more common for both domestic and micro-business complainants in 2018 than

in 2016. The increase in smart meter problems was particularly evident amongst domestic

complainants (a significant rise from 5% in 2016 to 14% in 2018), likely to reflect the

increasing take up of smart meters in the market. Micro-business complainants were

significantly more likely to complain about account management related problems (increase

from 2% in 2016 to 16% in 2018) – this was most likely to have been related to updating

account information and issues with the contract (set-up/ renewal/ ending). Micro business

complaints about customer service related issues have also increased in 2018 (13% vs. 6%

in 2016).

There were some differences in reasons for complaining to different suppliers. Over 60% of

domestic complainants to either npower or Co-op experienced billing issues (significantly

higher than the domestic market average of 51%), while complainants to British Gas were

more likely than average to be raising issues related to change of supplier or tariff (23% vs.

17% average, though 55% of complainants to British Gas still complained about billing

issues). Complainants to Utility Warehouse (domestic only) were more likely than others to

raise issues related to energy meters (either regular or smart meters).

Just over half of complainants considered their case to be ‘resolved’. While this

proportion has fluctuated within individual suppliers wave-on-wave, the overall market figure

has remained fairly consistent across each survey wave (see Figure 8 for details).

More domestic complainants (58%) had their complaint resolved within the c. 8 weeks in

this wave of the research than in the previous wave, marking a return to pre-2014 levels.

2016 2018 2016 2018 Significantly higher for…

Billing 56% 51% 70% 59% npower (61%), Co-op (71%)

Meters 23% 21% 20% 25% UW (31%)

Change of supplier/tariff 15% 17% 12% 18% BG (23%)

Smart Meters5% 14% - - EDF (19%), UW (25%)

- - 2% 8% E.ON (14%)

Customer service 12% 13% 6% 13%

Account Management 3% 9% 2% 16%

Pricing 12% 8% 10% 12% OVO (15%)

Pre-payment meters 5% 5% 0% 0% Utilita (10%)

Debt 5% 4% 6% 6% Co-op (9%)

Sales 4% 3% 6% 6% UW (7%)

Other 2% 1% 1% 0%

Domestic Micro- businesses


in 2018 vs. 2016



The proportion of resolved complaints has remained steady for micro-business

complainants (53%).

Figure 8: Complaint status from the complainants’ perspective.

QD2.Would you say your complaint is…?

Bases: Domestic - 2018 (All: 3,080; BG: 334; SSE: 356; EDF: 325; E.ON: 421; ScottishPower: 356; npower: 285; First Utility: 380; Utility Warehouse: 130; OVO: 106; Utilita: 245; Co-op: 142), 2016 (All: 3,049; BG: 653; SSE: 405; EDF: 228; E.ON: 500; ScottishPower : 332; npower: 452; First Utility: 247; Utility Warehouse: 120; OVO: 91), Micro-business (2018: 703; 2016: 468).

In the domestic market, most suppliers showed improvement in the number of resolved

cases, most notably npower (60%, from 48% in 2016), ScottishPower (53% from 42% in

2016) among the largest suppliers, and Utility Warehouse (59%, up from 46% in 2016)

among the medium suppliers. SSE (70% in 2018 and 68% in 2016) remained the best

performer. EDF (57%) and OVO (48%) had lower levels in 2018 compared with 2016 (61%

and 54% in 2016 respectively). Co-op Energy is the best performer among the surveyed

medium domestic suppliers in terms of the proportion of resolved cases after the 8-week

period, with 63% of complainants saying their complaint had been resolved. Utilita is

performing less well, with only 41% of cases being resolved according to the complainants.

41%

63%

48%

56%

59%

53%

57%

60%

60%

60%

70%

58%

52%

32%

49%

41%

38%

43%

38%

33%

34%

36%

26%

37%

7%

5%

3%

3%

2%

4%

5%

7%

6%

4%

5%

5%

Utilita

Co-op

OVO

First Utility

Utility Warehouse

ScottishPower

EDF

British Gas

npower

E.ON

SSE

Total

53% 41% 6%Total

Resolved

2016Domestic

Micro-business

53%

Resolved Unresolved Not sure

54%

65%

52%

46%

62%

52%

53%

45%

Resolved

2014

54%

56%

68%

59%

48%

60%

61%

42%

46%

52%

54%

NOT

ASKED

NOT

ASKED


in 2018 vs. 2016

Net reported as ‘Unresolved’



In the micro-business market, Opus, the only medium supplier included in the research, had

the highest number of resolved cases at the time of interview (around two-thirds of

complaints had been resolved at the time of interview). Most of the other micro-business

suppliers had lower numbers of resolved cases than in 2016, with a minor improvement for

EDF.

Note on unresolved cases: within this report, any reference to ‘unresolved’ cases refer to the

net figure of cases identified by complainants as unresolved plus those who were not sure if

their case had been resolved or not. This was consistent with the 2016 wave of the

research. Thus 42% of cases in the domestic market, and 47% of cases in the micro-

business market, were deemed unresolved.



4 Satisfaction with complaints handling

4.1 Market level satisfaction

Satisfaction with complaints handling has improved significantly among both

domestic and micro-business complainants overall (see Figure 9). In 2016, only just

over 1 in 4 (27%) of domestic complainants were satisfied with the way their complaint was

handled, and this rose significantly to 1 in 3 (32%) in 2018. Among micro-business

complainants, levels of satisfaction rose significantly from 21% in 2016, to 28% in 2018.

Figure 9: Overall satisfaction with complaint handling, 2010-2018.

QG1. Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you overall with the way in which your complaint has been handled by [named supplier]?

Bases: Domestic (2018: 3,080; 2016: 3,049; 2014: 2,457; 2012: 2,769; 2010: 2,734), Micro-business (2018: 703; 2016: 468, 2014: 287; 2012: 256; 2010: 274).

While complainants are still more likely to be dissatisfied than satisfied, the number of

dissatisfied customers has decreased significantly across the markets. Nevertheless, there

is still a way to go to improve complainant satisfaction. Overall, 57% of domestic and

46%32% 38%

45%39%

18%

15%19%

15%18%

12%

12%

13%12%

11%

13%

20%

19% 16% 20%

10%20%

11% 12% 12%

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Neither/nor

Quite dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Don't know

60

%2

7%

57

%3

0%

47

%4

0%

64

%2

3%

56%

37% 38%49% 47%

14%

17% 14%

19%14%

12%

11% 11%

11%

11%

8%

20% 23%

14%17%

8%14% 13%

6% 11%

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Very satisfied

Quite satisfied

Neither/nor

Quite dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Don't know

68

%2

1%

52

%3

6%

54

%3

4%

70

%1

6%

Domestic

Micro-business

57

%3

2%

60

%2

8%


in 2018 vs. 2016



60% of micro-business complainants were dissatisfied with their complaint handling

experience. Furthermore, the strength of complainants’ feelings of dissatisfaction is evident

given the high level of ‘very’ dissatisfied complainants: 39% domestic and 47% micro-

business.

4.2 Supplier level satisfaction

There were significant differences in levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with

how complaints were handled across suppliers in the domestic market since 2016.

Encouragingly, the worst domestic performers from 2016, npower and ScottishPower, have

shown significant uplifts in overall satisfaction, owing in part to the improvements in the

number of resolved cases. Clearly, their efforts to implement improvements after the

deterioration in satisfaction over the 2014-2016 period, have had a positive impact on the

experiences of their domestic complainants, though there is still a long way to go as the

majority, close to 2 in 3, were dissatisfied with how their complaint had been handled. Figure

10a below shows satisfaction levels among the largest suppliers in the domestic market.

Figure 10a: Overall satisfaction with complaint handling – largest domestic suppliers.


Bases: 2016 – Domestic Total (3,049), Largest suppliers Total (2,570), Medium suppliers Total (479), British Gas (653), SSE (405), EDF (228), E.ON (500), ScottishPower (332), npower (452). 2018 – Domestic Total (3,080), Largest suppliers Total (2,077), Medium suppliers Total (1,003), British Gas (334), SSE (356), EDF (325), E.ON (421), ScottishPower (356), npower (285).

Among domestic medium suppliers (see Figure 10b below), First Utility has seen a

significant uplift in satisfaction with complaints handling, and others have seen marginal

improvements. It is also encouraging to see a decrease in levels of complainants who were

very dissatisfied with their experience (where comparisons with 2016 can be made). Co-op

is the top performer (34% satisfied, 58% dissatisfied), while complainants to Utilita were

45

%

39

%

42

%

38

%

59

%

50

%

26

%

27

%

34

%

35

%

35

%

30

% 41

%

45

%

67

%

41

%

64

%

47

%

15

%

18

%

16

%

18

%

13

%

16

%

14

%

16

% 16

%

19

%

16

%

22

% 17

%

17

%

16

%

21

%

13

%

16

%12%

11% 12%11%

10%

10%

16% 12%

14% 10% 15% 12%

12% 10%

6%

11%

9%

11%

16

%

20

%

17

%

21

%

11

%

13

%

23

%

26

% 19

%

21

%

15

%

22

% 18

%

19

%

8%2

0%

9%

19

%

12

%

12

%

13

%

12

% 7% 10%

20

%

18

%

16

%

15

%

17

%

14

%

11

% 10%3% 8% 4% 6%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Domestic

Total

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers

SSE E.ON EDFBritish

Gasnpower

Scottish

Power

Very satisfied Quite satisfied Neither/nor Quite dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know


in 2018 vs. 2016



least satisfied with how their case was handled, with 70% of them feeling very or quite

dissatisfied (and only 21% being very or quite satisfied).

Figure 10b: Overall satisfaction with complaint handling – medium domestic suppliers.


Bases: 2016 – Domestic Total (3,049), Largest suppliers Total (2,570), Medium suppliers Total (479), First Utility (247), Utility Warehouse (120), OVO (91). 2018 – Domestic Total (3,080), Largest suppliers Total (2,077), Medium suppliers Total (1,003), First Utility (380), Utility Warehouse (130), OVO (106), Utilita (245), Co-op Energy (142).

Base sizes don’t allow for full comparison of data among micro-business suppliers.

4.3 Satisfaction levels among vulnerable domestic complainants

Vulnerable complainants15 (domestic market only) were significantly more likely than

the market average to be very or quite satisfied with how their complaint was handled

(36% vs. 32% respectively)16. Around half (48%17) of vulnerable complainants to SEE (and a

similar proportion of vulnerable complainants to EDF) reported being very or quite satisfied

with how their complaint had been handled. Vulnerable complainants who complained to

medium-sized suppliers were generally less satisfied with their experience – this is in line

with the rest of the market.

The following chapters look at the complaint journey in detail to understand what a typical

complainants’ experience looks like, and what might sit behind these levels of satisfaction.

15 See section 3.1.1 for a definition of vulnerable complainants. 16 Bases: Vulnerable complainants (795); All domestic complainants (3,080). 17 Base: SSE vulnerable complainants (143).

DomesticSignificantly higher / lower

in 2018 vs. 2016

*

45

%

39

%

42

%

38

%

59

%

50

% 63

%

46

% 53

%

44

%

49

%

43

%

0%

56

%

0

42

%

15

%

18

%

16

%

18

%

13

%

16

%

17

%

16

% 10

%

12

% 14

%

22

%

0%

14

%

0

16

%

12%11% 12%

11%

10%

10%

9%

14% 10%

12%

14% 11%

0%

9%

0

6%

16

%

20

%

17

%

21

%

11

%

13

%

9%

17

%

14

%

18

% 13

%

11

%

0%

11

%

0

23

%

12

%

12

%

13

%

12

% 7% 10%2% 7%

11

%

14

% 8%

11

%

0%

10%

0

11

%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Total

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers

First

Utility

Utility

WarehouseOVO Utilita

Co-op

Energy

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

* Low base

Very satisfied Quite satisfied Neither/nor Quite dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know



5 The complaint journey

5.1 Introducing the journey

The complaint ‘journey’ was explored by identifying the core stages in the complaints

process, also shown in Figure 11 below:

1. Start of the journey ▪ Finding contact details

▪ Registration and confirmation/ acknowledgement

▪ Next steps and timescales

2. Subsequent contact ▪ Communication following initial contact to reach problem

resolution

3. Escalation and third

party involvement

▪ Potential escalation to a more senior member of staff

and/or referral to the Energy Ombudsman

4. Resolution ▪ Including receiving confirmation/ acknowledgement of

resolution

5. Closure ▪ Receiving an explanation of what went wrong or an

apology

▪ Receiving compensation, if applicable

Each stage was investigated in detail to understand what the process was like from the

complainants’ perspective, and what impact each element had on overall satisfaction with

complaints handling. The questions asked about each stage of the complaint journey

reflected the requirements of Ofgem’s Complaint Handling Standards (CHS) which suppliers

must adhere to.

Figure 11: The complaint journey.



Finding

contact details

Lodging

complaint

Registration /

confirmation of complaint

Subsequent contact

with supplier to reach a problem

resolution

Referral to Energy

Ombudsman

Confirmation of

process / next steps, and timescales

Escalation

Formal

resolution confirmation

Resolution

Explanation of what

went wrong

Apology

Compensation

Start of the journeySubsequent

contactEscalation Resolution Closure and impact

COMPLAINT JOURNEY STAGES:

STEPS IN EACH STAGE:



The remaining sections in this chapter address each of the core steps in the complaint

journey in detail, starting with the ease of finding the correct contact details to be able to

lodge the complaint or express dissatisfaction with the service received.

5.2 Start of the journey

5.2.1 Raising the complaint

Supplier contact details continue to be easily found by most complainants (76% for

domestic; 78% for micro-businesses in 2018, with comparable proportions in 2016 among

both groups of complainants – see Figure 12 below). Vulnerable complainants found it even

easier, with 81% having said that it was easy to find the right contact details to raise the

issue with the supplier.

Figure 12: Ease of finding the right contact details to lodge the complaint.

QB2_2. How easy or difficult was it to find the contact details?

Bases: Domestic (2018: 3,080; 2016: 3,049), Micro-business (2018: 703; 2016: 468).

Those who found it more difficult to find the contact details didn’t have a common

characteristic which could contribute to this, which suggested any difficulties were more

likely to be related to individual complainant circumstances rather than a failing on the part

of the suppliers.

Bills, statements, and the suppliers’ websites were the most common sources of

information to find supplier contact details to raise a complaint (see Figure 13 over the

page). While bills and account statements were the most common source among domestic

complainants (36%), it was significantly less commonly used than in 2016 (42%), though still

a dominant source of information for vulnerable complainants (44% of vulnerable

complainants in 2018). Other forms of communication from suppliers were used more in

2018 (19% vs. 12% in 2016) – these include direct mail or marketing communication, an

app provided by the suppliers or previous correspondence, etc.

Domestic Micro-business

40% 39% 40% 40%

37% 37%41% 37%

4% 4%4%

4%9% 8%

7%5%

6% 6%5%

6%

3% 6% 3% 6%

2016 2018 2016 2018

Don't know

Very difficult

Quite difficult

Neither / nor

Quite easy

Very easy

14

%7

6%

12

%7

8%


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 13: Source of contact details.

QB1. Thinking about when you contacted [named supplier] in [Complaint month], where did you find the contact information you needed to make the complaint?


Micro-business complainants typically found the supplier’s contact details on their bills or

account statements (55% in 2018) – this is fairly consistent with 2016, when other sources

of information were used comparatively little.

While registering the complaint was easy for most, 1 in 3 still experienced difficulties

– this hasn’t changed since 2016 (see Figure 14). The experience of registering a

complaint among vulnerable complainants is comparable to the market average.

Figure 14: Ease of registering the complaint.

QB2_2. How easy or difficult was it to register your complaint with [named supplier]?



27% 27% 25% 26%

29% 30% 33% 28%

5% 5% 5%7%

15% 16% 14% 15%

21% 18% 19% 20%

3% 4% 3% 4%

2016 2018 2016 2018

Don't know

Very difficult

Quite difficult

Neither / nor

Quite easy

Very easy

34

%5

7%

35

%5

4%


in 2018 vs. 2016



in 2018 vs. 2016

62%

18%

14%

3%

0%

3%

2%

55%

15%

16%

6%

4%

2%

5%

2016

2018

42%

33%

12%

7%

1%

5%

2%

36%

33%

19%

8%

2%

3%

4%

Bill or account statement

Supplier website

Other form of communication with supplier

Other website

Referred from other department

Other

Can't remember2016

2018



However, there was some variation among suppliers in the domestic energy market.

Complainants to npower found it significantly easier to register their complaint in 2018 than

in 2016, and fewer ScottishPower complainants found it difficult in 2018 compared to

previous years, though ScottishPower’s performance was still lower than the other largest

suppliers (see Figure 15a). There was little change in the ease of complaint registration with

other large suppliers since 2016.

Figure 15a: Ease of registering the complaint – largest domestic suppliers.


Bases: 2016 – Domestic Total (3,049), Largest suppliers Total (2,570), Medium suppliers Total (479), British Gas (653), SSE (405), EDF (228), E.ON (500), ScottishPower (332), npower (452). 2018 – Domestic Total (3,080), Largest suppliers Total (2,077), Medium suppliers Total (1,003), British Gas (334), SSE (356), EDF (325), E.ON (421), ScottishPower (356), npower (285).

Complainants to medium suppliers found it easier to register their complaint in 2018

compared to 2016. This improvement is particularly evident among complainants to First

Utility. However, complainants to Utilita found it more difficult to register their complaint than

complainants to other medium or largest suppliers – see Figure 15b.

21

%

18

%

20

%

17

%

27

%

22

%

13

%

15

%

15

%

14

%

12

%

11

%

19

%

21

% 34

%

20

% 34

%

22

%

15

%

16

%

14

%

16

% 17

%

17

%

12

% 13

%

15

%

16

%

14

%

16

% 14

%

18

%

15

%

15

%

18

%

17

%

5% 5% 5% 5%

5%7%

5%4%

7% 4%

5% 6%4%

5%

6%

5%

3%

6%

29

%

30

%

29

%

30

% 29

%

30

%

31

%

29

% 32

%

33

%

30

%

31

%

29

%

24

%

30

%

36

% 24

%

30

%

27

%

27

%

29

%

28

%

20

%

21

%

37

%

35

%

28

%

28

%

36

%

32

%

30

%

29

% 13

%

21

%

19

%

21

%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Domestic

Total

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers

SSE E.ON EDFBritish

Gasnpower

Scottish

Power

Very easy Quite easy Neither / nor Quite difficult Very difficult Don't know


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 15b: Ease of registering the complaint – medium domestic suppliers.


Bases: 2016 – Domestic Total (3,049), Largest suppliers Total (2,570), Medium suppliers Total (479), First Utility (247), Utility Warehouse (120), OVO (91). 2018 – Domestic Total (3,080), Largest suppliers Total (2,077), Medium suppliers Total (1,003), First Utility (380), Utility Warehouse (130), OVO (106), Utilita (245), Co-op Energy (142).

Among domestic complainants, there were significant differences in the types of

complaints that were found easier or more difficult to register (see Figure 16).

Consistently with 2016, complaints about debt related issues were among the most difficult

to register – and no doubt allied to these were complainants’ greater difficulties in sourcing

their supplier’s contact details in the first place. Registering complaints concerning pre-

payment meters was also more problematic. Complaints about smart meters were relatively

easy to register for complainants.

Figure 16: Ease of registering specific types of complaints.


Bases: See table.

DomesticEasy %

(Very/Quite)

Difficult %

(Very/Quite)Base (n)

Average 57% 34% 3,080

Smart meters 63% 26% 422

Billing 52% 38% 1,603

Pre-payment meters 44% 47% 126

Debt 44% 47% 131

Domestic

Very easy Quite easy Neither / nor Quite difficult Very difficult Don't know


in 2018 vs. 2016

*

21

%

18

%

20

%

17

%

27

%

22

% 34

%

22

%

19

%

19

%

24

%

15

%

0%

26

%

0%

14

%

15

%

16

%

14

%

16

% 17

%

17

% 14

%

14

%

19

%

18

%

11

%

11

%

0%

21

%

0%

14

%

5% 5% 5% 5%

5%7%

4%

8%7%

5%4%

8%

0%

6%

0%

8%

29

%

30

%

29

%

30

% 29

%

30

% 30

%

27

%

30

%

31

%

33

%

34

%

0%

30

%

0%

35

%

27

%

27

%

29

%

28

%

20

%

21

%

16

%

27

%

23

%

25

%

25

%

30

%

0%

14

%

0%

23

%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Total

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers

First

Utility

Utility

WarehouseOVO Utilita

Co-op

Energy

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

* Low base



Among the c. third of complainants who found it difficult to have their complaint

registered, the most common reasons involved not being able to get through to the

right person or department and being passed around (see Figures 17a). Comparison

against 2016 showed this is a growing problem for domestic complainants (57% in 2016 vs.

66% in 2018). Problems related to the complaint not being properly acknowledged or

understood were less common in 2018 than in 2016. This suggests that once complainants

do get through, the level of service they receive is improving. However, domestic suppliers

need to address this emerging issue of complainants having difficulties accessing the right

staff to address their case. The experience of vulnerable complainants is consistent with

this.

Figure 17a: Main reasons it was difficult to register the complaint – domestic complaints.

QB3. What would you say was the MAIN reason why you found it difficult to have your complaint registered?

Bases: Domestic complainants who found it difficult to register their complaint (2018: 1,046; 2016: 1,131).

Micro-businesses were more likely to struggle in 2018 with having their complaint

acknowledged as a problem than in 2016 (33% in 2018 vs. 17% in 2016). In particular, they

found that the supplier claimed the complaint they were raising was not actually an issue

(see Figure 17b). From a complainant point of view this can be quite frustrating as it sets a

negative tone for the rest of the process.

33%

33%

15%

15%

9%

8%

3%

12%

5%

7%

43%

36%

12%

12%

6%

6%

1%

14%

3%

3%

I could not get through to the right person / department

I was passed around

I was put through to the wrong person / department

Supplier claimed there was no problem

Refused to put me through to complaints department

My written complaint was not acknowledged

Supplier never got back to me after I initially raised theissue

The phone was always engaged

No understanding of problem

Rude staff

2016

2018

NOT ABLE TO

GET THROUGH TOTHE RIGHT PERSON

LACK

OF RECOGNITION

GETTING THROUGH

STAFF RELATED

ISSUES

Domestic

2016 57%

2018 66%

2016 30%

2018 23%


in 2018 vs. 2016

2016 11%

2018 6%



Figure 17b: Main reasons it was difficult to register the complaint – micro-business complaints.

QB3. What would you say was the MAIN reason why you found it difficult to have your complaint registered?

Bases: Micro-business complainants who found it difficult to register their complaint (2018: 255; 2016: 163).

5.2.2 Confirmation of process and next steps

Around 6 in 10 complainants received a formal acknowledgement of their complaint,

consistently with 2016. Encouragingly, the proportion of complainants stating they have

not received a formal confirmation has decreased significantly among domestic

complainants – this may be a result of a higher number of complaints being resolved on the

same day (18% in 2018 vs.14% in 2016 among resolved cases, see Figure 34 in section

5.2.2), meaning that there is not a need to send out those types of communications.

Figure 18: Formal confirmation/ acknowledgment of the complaint.

QB4. I will now read out a few statements related to what might or might not have happened when you first contacted [named supplier] about your complaint. As I read each statement out, please say YES or NO to indicate whether or not it happened to you.

Bases: Domestic (2018: 3.080; 2016: 3,049), Micro-business (2018: 703; 2016: 468).

47%

42%

28%

9%

4%

4%

1%

2%

9%

2%

42%

38%

15%

23%

6%

7%

1%

5%

4%

3%

I could not get through to the right person / department

I was passed around

I was put through to the wrong person / department

Supplier claimed there was no problem

Refused to put me through to complaints department

My written complaint was not acknowledged

Supplier never got back to me after I initially raised theissue

The phone was always engaged

No understanding of problem

Rude staff

2016

2018

NOT ABLE TO

GET THROUGH TOTHE RIGHT PERSON

LACK

OF RECOGNITION

GETTING THROUGH

STAFF RELATED

ISSUES

Micro-business


in 2018 vs. 2016

2016 74%

2018 64%

2016 17%

2018 33%

2016 11%

2018 7%

67% 30%I received a formal acknowledgement of my

complaint via email, post of phone57% 40%2016

Micro-businessDomestic

Yes No Don't know or N/A

67% 29%I received a formal acknowledgement of my

complaint via email, post of phone59% 36%2018


in 2018 vs. 2016

I received a formal

acknowledgement

of my complaint

via email, post or

phone



Vulnerable complainants were less likely to receive a formal acknowledgement of their

complaint, with just over half (54%) stating they had. One in five (20%) vulnerable

complainants with resolved cases said their complaint was resolved on the same day, which

could contribute to the lower propensity to receive a formal complaint acknowledgment.

Performance concerning other aspects of initial contact with the supplier was mixed

(see Figure 19 below).

Figure 19: What happened at initial contact.

QB4/ QC8_4. I will now read out a few statements related to what might or might not have happened when you first contacted [named supplier] about your complaint. As I read each statement out, please say YES or NO to indicate whether or not it happened to you.


✓ Language used by initial response staff was consistently clear (and more so in 2018 –

81% vs. 77% in 2016 among domestic complainants, and 80% in 2018 among micro-

business complainants). Among vulnerable complainants, 78% said language used was

easy to understand.

Receiving a complaint reference number was increasingly common, though there is still

room for improvement with only around 4 in 10 complainants receiving this. Fewer, 34%

of vulnerable complainants received this, however, it doesn’t seem to have affected their

experience significantly given the higher than average levels of satisfaction with

complaints handling among this group.

Around half of complainants (50% of domestic complainants – including 47% of

vulnerable complainants, and 48% of micro-business complainants) were asked how

they would prefer to be contacted – while this may seem a small element of the process,

it can set a positive tone for the rest of the journey, one of consideration and putting the

complainant first.

There remains significant room for improvement in consistency of ownership of the

complaint (dealing with one person). Around 3 in 10 domestic complainants were given

a named contact, as well as 4 in 10 micro-business complainants. Among micro-

business complainants, businesses with 5 to 9 employees were more likely to receive

Staff used language I could

understand (reversed)

I was given a named contact who

was responsible for my case

I was asked how I would prefer to be

contacted throughout the process

Supplier gave me a complaint

reference / tracking number

79%

80%

36%

40%

47%

48%

50%

52%

18%

18%

59%

54%

45%

40%

41%

39%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

77%

81%

36%

34%

48%

50%

39%

44%

22%

17%

60%

60%

44%

39%

53%

45%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

Yes No Don't know or N/A


in 2018 vs. 2016

KEY: Good Room for improvement In need of significant improvement



this information – they are larger than other micro-businesses and may have more

formal business relationships established with their energy suppliers.

Suppliers still fail to set expectations for the process for complainants in the majority

of cases (see Figure 20) – there has been little change since 2016 with only around half

being told what steps would be taken to resolve their complaint, and 1 in 3 receiving a

complaint resolution date, among both domestic and micro-business complainants.18

Figure 20: Setting expectations and provision of resolution timescales.

QB4. I will now read out a few statements related to what might or might not have happened when you first contacted [named supplier] about your complaint. As I read each statement out, please say YES or NO to indicate whether or not it happened to you.


In 2016, setting expectations at the start of the process was one of the areas flagged as

needing significant improvement. Not setting the complainants expectations from the outset

can leave them to set their own expectations, which may be far removed from reality. This

can lead to disappointments if self-defined expectations are not fulfilled – e.g. if the

complainant expects regular updates but the process only accounts for one or two times

when the complainant will be contacted with an update, that could leave them feeling

disappointed about the lack of clarity with what is happening with their complaint. It remains

an area in need of significant improvement.

Among domestic complainants, npower and ScottishPower had both improved in setting

expectations for resolution times at the start of the process (npower 40% vs. 33% in 2016;

ScottishPower 36% vs. 32% in 2016), to the extent that they performed above the domestic

average (33%). SSE’s performance, previously top of class, has fallen back in 2018 (30%

vs. 42% in 2016). There have been no significant shifts in this area among medium

suppliers.

Among those who have received a date by which their complaint would be resolved,

the projected resolution periods have shortened slightly, particularly for domestic

complainants (see Figure 21). Overall, complaints lodged by micro-businesses were

expected to take longer to resolve than domestic complaints, consistently with 2016.

Nevertheless, there were signs of improvement, with a decrease in the longer projected

18 This is consistent with the experience of vulnerable complainants.

Yes No N/A

49%

51%

25%

28%

26%

31%

47%

44%

64%

64%

67%

61%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

54%

54%

32%

32%

34%

33%

43%

41%

61%

60%

61%

59%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

I was told what steps would be taken

to resolve my complaint

I was told how long each step in the

resolution process would take

I was given a date by which my

complaint would be resolved


in 2018 vs. 2016 Micro-businessDomestic



resolution times (taking longer than2 months among domestic complainants – 9% in 2018

vs 12% in 2016).

Figure 21: Estimated resolution period.

QB5. How long did named supplier tell you it would take to resolve your complaint?

Bases: All given a resolution date: Domestic (2016: 1,034; 2018: 976), Micro-business (2016: 117; 2018: 219).

Projected resolution periods have improved for complaints made to npower and

ScottishPower, who had some of the longest specified resolution periods among largest

suppliers in 2016 (see Figure 22 over the page).

It is important to ensure that the estimated resolution timescales are realistic, however, and

avoid artificially reducing the estimate to satisfy the complainant. This is closely linked with

setting the right expectations for the complainants from the outset. As the report will come to

discuss complaint closure, it will become clear that complainants don’t look for a ‘quick and

dirty’ resolution (though speed does help reduce any anxiety associated with waiting for an

outcome), but rather, they want to know that their case is taken seriously and will be dealt

with to resolve the matter fully. Thus, if a complaint is predicted to take longer, an

explanation as to why should suffice is ensuring the complainant does not feel

disenfranchised.

2016 2018 2016 2018

Same day 13% 15% 5% 8%

Within a couple of days 11% 8% 1% 1%

3 to 7 days / within a week 12% 13% 12% 16%

8 to 14 days / within a fortnight 15% 17% 24% 18%

15 to 28 days / within a month 17% 15% 17% 20%

28 to 56 days / within 2 months12%

7%11%

6%

More than 56 days / longer than 2 months 2% 5%

Can't remember 20% 23% 29% 28%


in 2018 vs. 2016Micro-businessDomestic



Figure 22: Estimated resolution periods – largest domestic suppliers.

QB5. How long did named supplier tell you it would take to resolve your complaint?

Bases: All who were provided with a resolution date – 2016 Domestic (1,034), Largest (908), Medium (126), British Gas (257), E.ON (155), EDF (73), npower (149), ScottishPower (105), SSE (169). 2018 Domestic (976), Largest suppliers (712), Medium suppliers (264), British Gas (127), E.ON (141), EDF (96), npower (113), ScottishPower (129), SSE (106).

5.3 Ongoing communication

5.3.1 Adhering to agreed follow up

Previous waves of the research have shown that ongoing communication is of

paramount importance to the complaints process. Its presence ensures complainants

are not in the dark about what’s happening with their complaint, and it gives the supplier the

opportunity to drive the process and ensure the complainant knows what to expect when.

This chapter will explore the importance of ongoing communications for handling complaints

and suppliers’ performance in this area.

Suppliers improved significantly in getting back to complainants when promised or

agreed since 2016 (see Figure 23 over the page). In 2016, around a third of complainants

said their supplier got back to them when promised or agreed, and this increased

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Can't remember

More than 28 days / longer than a month

15 to 28 days / within a month

8 to 14 days / within a fortnight

3 to 7 days / within a week

Within a couple of days

Same day

13

%

15

%

12

%

15

%

15

%

17

%

15

%

15

%

13

%

9%

6%14%

12

%

16

%

3% 14

%

20

%

21

%11

%

8%

11

%

8% 10% 8%

12

%

8%

10

%

9%

3%

4% 19

%

10%

10%

5%

10% 11

%

12

%

13

%

13

%

13

%

6% 12

%

10

%

10%

14

%

17

%

11%

8%

15

%

14

%

10%

12

%

14

%

17

%

15

%

17

%

16

%

17

%

11

% 13

%

15

%

15

%

16

%

14

%

18

% 18

%

11

%

16

%

24

% 21

%

15

% 17

%

17

%

15

%

15

%

15

%

29

%

12

%

12

%

15

%

14

%

20

%

20

% 19

%

15

%

7%

18

% 19

% 13

% 11

%

12

%

9%

12

%

8% 14

%

13

% 15

%

10

%

10

% 9%

22

%

8%

8%

6% 13

% 11

% 9% 6%

20

%

23

%

21

%

22

%

16

%

25

%

20

%

25

%

23

%

21

%

19

%

28

% 19

%

31

% 23

%

18

%

19

%

18

%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Total SSEBritish

Gasnpower EDF

Scottish

PowerE.ON

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers


in 2018 vs. 2016 Domestic



significantly to 39% among domestic complainants and 42% among micro-business

complainants. However, suppliers still weren’t regularly updating complainants on the

progress of their case, with only around 1 in 4 (25% among domestic complainants and 26%

among micro-business complainants) having said their supplier proactively got in touch with

them.

Figure 23: Follow up contact.

QC8/ QB4. During the complaints process, did [named supplier]..?

Bases: All domestic complainants (2016:3,049; 2018: 3,080), All micro-business complainants (2016: 468; 2018: 703).

This is an important element of the journey for complainants and a potentially costly one for

suppliers – regularly updating all complainants could overload staff and render them unable

to deal with new complaints. This is why setting expectations is so important. If expectations

are correctly managed from the beginning of the process, proactively updating complainants

about their case will only be necessary if anything changes e.g. the complaint will take

longer to resolve.

5.3.2 Re-contacting the supplier

Improvements in getting back to complainants when agreed had a positive impact in

significantly reducing the number of complainants who said they had to chase for

updates. In 2016 57% of domestic complainants, and 66% of micro-business complainants

re-contacted their supplier. This has reduced significantly to 49% and 57% respectively in

2018. Furthermore, the number of calls to the supplier has reduced significantly, which also

seems to have contributed to a reduction in stress levels associated with the complaints

process (see Figure 24 over the page).

Yes No N/A


in 2018 vs. 2016


32%

42%

22%

26%

57%

65%

61%

48%

75%

68%

33%

28%

36%

39%

25%

25%

59%

61%

56%

49%

69%

64%

33%

28%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

…always get back to you

when promised or agreed

...regularly update you on the

progress of your complaint

...used your preferred method

of contact when following up

During the complaints

process, did the

supplier…



Figure 24: Chasing suppliers.

QC9. During the complaints process, did you…? QC1d. Approximately how many times did you YOU contact, or attempt to contact them? QC5. And approximately how many people at have you dealt with in total throughout the complaint process? QG3a. Thinking about the way have handled your complaint /so far, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the complaints process was strassful?

Bases: QC9 – All domestic complainants (2016: 3,049; 2018: 3,080), All micro-business complainants (2016: 468: 2018:703). QC1d/ QC5/ QG3a – All who chased; Domestic complainants (2016: 1,784; 2018: 1,555), All micro-business complainants (2016: 297: 2018: 414).

Despite fewer complainants chasing for information and calling the supplier fewer times, the

number of people the complainants dealt with has increased significantly. However, as

mentioned, it has not caused more stress, potentially because other elements of the journey

are working better, e.g. suppliers getting back to complainants when agreed.

Marginally fewer vulnerable complainants have had to chase for updates (45%). The

difference in their experience is that among those who chased, they chased fewer times on

average (4.2 times) and spoke to fewer staff when they did chase. Nevertheless, their stress

levels were comparable (73% agreed the process was stressful).

Suppliers were getting better at keeping a record of a complaint being raised and had

the right contact details for the complainants in the majority of cases. However, there

remains a problem with the full details of the complaint history being kept on record. While

this was relevant to around a third of complainants, particularly for those who spoke to 3 or

more people when chasing for information, it could have had a detrimental effect on the

experience if, e.g. the complainants had to re-iterate the complaint history to the supplier

each time they spoke to a different member of staff (see Figure 25 over the page).

66%

57%

33%

41%

2015

2017

57%

49%

40%

48%

2016

2018

2016 2018 2016 2018

No. of times re-contacted supplier 7.2 5.2 10.8 7.8

No. of people dealt with3+ people

(79%)

3+ people

(84%)

3+ people

(81%)

3+ people

(90%)

Found the process stressful 77% 75% 84% 75%

Had to chase to find out

what was happening

with the complaint:

Yes

No

N/A


in 2018 vs. 2016Micro-businessDomestic



Figure 25: Record keeping upon re-contact.

QC2b_3 When you re-contacted them in relation to your complaint, did they have the following details?

Bases: Those who re-contacted supplier; Domestic (2016: 2,064; 2018: 1,803); Micro-business (2016: 342; 2018: 476).

5.4 Complaint escalation and third parties

5.4.1 Provision of information

While there have been many improvements in how complaints were handled in 2018,

complainants were still given very little information about third party solutions and

alternative redress routes. At best, there have only been some marginal improvements in

supplier information provision, except fewer domestic complainants recalled being told that

they can seek independent advice in relation to their complaint. More micro-business

complainants were told that they could escalate their complaint (25% vs. 19% in 2016).

Generally speaking, micro-business complainants seem to have been better informed than

domestic complainants. And among domestic complainants, those who complained to

largest suppliers were better informed than those who complained to medium-sized

suppliers.

Yes No N/A


in 2018 vs. 2016


87%

87%

68%

73%

63%

63%

11%

10%

23%

18%

26%

26%

89%

90%

67%

71%

59%

60%

9%

7%

27%

22%

33%

29%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

…your correct contact details

...a record of your complaint

...full details about the

complaint history

When re-contacting

the supplier, did they

have…



Figure 26: Information given from supplier by domestic and micro-business.

QC4_2 and QC4_3. I’ll now read out statements relating to how you were dealt with by [named supplier] when handling your complaint. This relates to any contact you had with them, whether by telephone, email or any other format. QC8_1 and QC8_2. During the complaints process, did the supplier…?


While not many use these options (see Section 5.5 on Resolution), those who have not

received this information, found the complaints process to be significantly more stressful

than those who have (avg. 76% strongly or somewhat agree process was stressful vs. 67%

in 2016). Feeling that there was no other way out of the situation should the complaint not

be resolved to a complainant’s satisfaction can cause this.

There has been a subtle increase in complainants saying that providing this type of

information in not applicable/ not relevant to them. They were most likely to be complainants

to E.ON or SSE, and in some cases EDF (the suppliers who have more satisfied

complainants). This suggests that the complaints process worked well enough for those few

complainants, and with shorter than average resolution periods, they didn’t feel they needed

that information.

5.4.2 Escalating the complaint with the supplier

Around a third of complainants said they escalated their complaint to a more senior

member of staff (35% among domestic complainants and 36% among micro business

complainants). This has remained constant since 2016. Among vulnerable complainants,

slightly fewer, 32%, escalated their complaint.

Did the supplier…

Tell you where you

could seek independent advice

Tell you that you could

escalate your complaint

Direct you to the

complaints handling procedure on their website

Offer to send

complaints handling procedure for free

25%

21%

23%

26%

23%

22%

19%

25%

18%

18%

14%

18%

14%

14%

14%

17%

70%

71%

73%

66%

73%

71%

77%

68%

73%

69%

76%

67%

78%

74%

76%

69%

5%

8%

4%

8%

4%

6%

4%

7%

9%

13%

10%

15%

8%

11%

11%

14%

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

2016

2018

Yes No N/A


in 2018 vs. 2016



Slow and poor-quality response from staff was the main driving factor behind this,

and has remained to be since 2016, though significantly fewer feel this way (see Figure 27

below). Among domestic complainants, lack of understanding of the problem was less of an

issue overall in 2018, as was the staff attitude – there were subtle increase in other reasons

for escalation among domestic complainants, but overall, they remained in line with 2016.

Figure 27: Main reason for escalating complaint.

QC6. You said that you escalated your complaint to a senior member of staff, why is that?

Bases: Those who escalated their complaint; Domestic (2016: 1,118, 2018: 1,114); Micro-business (2016: 166; 2018: 261).

Micro-business complainants were more likely to struggle with their complaint not being

logged properly which would impede its effective resolution, as well as wanting to deal with

a single person. The inference is twofold: the quality of contact staff was impeding complaint

resolution; and that a more senior member of staff was perceived to have the abilities and

skills to resolve the problem more effectively than the prior contacted staff. Furthermore,

many complainants not having their expectations set by the supplier at the start of the

process, made them more likely to feel dissatisfied with how their case was progressing –

they wanted their own expectations to be fulfilled.

5.5 Resolution

5.5.1 Unresolved complaints

The situation remains as it was in 2016. Just under half of complainants identified their

complaint as unresolved or they were not sure if it was resolved at the time of their interview

(42% of domestic and 47% of micro-business complainants).19 Of these unresolved

19 QD2. Would you say your complaint is…? Bases: All domestic (2018: 3,080; 2016: 3,049), All micro-business

(2018: 703; 2016: 468).


2016 2018 2016 2018

It was taking too long to get the complaint resolved 39% 31% 68% 34%

Staff I spoke to did not understand my complaint / didn't

understand what the problem was29% 22% 13% 19%

I found it difficult to find the right person to handle my complaint 26% 29% 37% 28%

I just wanted things to move along quicker 19% 20% 17% 26%

Every time I called I had to speak to someone different 12% 9% 12% 10%

Complaint was not logged properly 11% 10% 2% 22%

Staff attitude 10% 7% 5% 5%

I wanted to deal with one person 8% 8% 4% 9%

I hadn't heard anything for a long time 7% 5% 4% 5%


in 2018 vs. 2016



complainants, few engaged with third parties for support during the complaints process -

usage levels in the case of domestic complainants were lower than in 2016.

Figure 28: Unresolved complaints – third party contact.

QF1. Thinking about what's been happening so far in relation to your complaint, has [named supplier]…? QF2. And have you…Contacted the Energy Ombudsman? QF3. Were you aware of the Energy Ombudsman prior to making a complaint with [named supplier]?

Bases: QF1/QF2 - Unresolved complaints: (Domestic: 2018: 1,302; 2016: 1,351; Micro-business: 2018: 333; 2016: 218). QF3 - Those who contacted the ombudsman - Domestic (2018: 123; 2016: 215).

NB. Bases include all unresolved complaints as at the time of interview, projected resolution period will have been longer than 8 weeks.

Nevertheless, complainants found that a lack of communication from suppliers was

the main reason why their complaints were still ongoing. Most of them were held in

‘limbo’, not knowing what was happening next – 45% of domestic complainants and 34% of

micro-business complainants felt that nothing was being done, having not heard from their

supplier. This was in line with 2016 (see Figure 29 over the page).

Among vulnerable complainants, lack of communication from suppliers was also the main

problem (53%).

of them received a letter from the

supplier referring them to the

Energy Ombudsman

of them knew about the Energy

Ombudsman prior to making this

complaint5%

9%

15%

Have contacted Citizens Advice

Have contacted the EnergyOmbudsman

Were sent a letter referring them tothe Energy Ombudsman 49%

67%

5%

12%

20%

Have contacted Citizens Advice

Have contacted the EnergyOmbudsman

Were sent a letter referring them tothe Energy Ombudsman

Domestic

Micro-business

(44%)

(64%)

(2016)

(15%)

(14%)

(7%)

(24%)

(13%)

(3%)


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 29: Unresolved complainants – perceived complaint situation.

QF4. As far as you're aware, what's currently happening with your complaint?

Bases: Unresolved complaints: (Domestic: 2018: 1,302; 2016: 1,351; Micro-business: 2018: 333; 2016: 218)

However, data suggested that the impact of having their complaints unresolved was less

severe than in 2016, with significantly fewer domestic complainants having complained

again about the same issue (28% vs. 32% in 2016). However, complainants to

ScottishPower (consistently with 2016), British Gas and Utility Warehouse in the domestic

market were more likely than other complainants to make a further complaint about the

same issue. This was least likely to be the case for SSE and EDF (consistently with 2016)

as well as Co-op Energy. In the micro-business market, 30% of complainants with

unresolved cases complained about the same issue again (compared to 37% in 2016 – this

decrease was not significant).

5.5.2 Resolution Gap

The ‘resolution gap’ is a measure of complaints that are flagged as resolved (or closed) by

the supplier, but the complainants consider them unresolved or still ongoing. It is expressed

as a percentage of all complaints flagged as resolved by the supplier. Overall, the

resolution gap has remained fairly consistent since 2009 – around 4 in 10 resolved

cases are deemed unresolved by the complainants, but an underlying trend suggests a

narrowing of the resolution gap over time, albeit very slowly (see Figure 30 over the page).



in 2018 vs. 2016

48%

12%

29%

5%

16%

10%

3%

5%

34%

15%

16%

9%

15%

6%

5%

5%

2016

2018

44%

12%

18%

8%

12%

6%

2%

3%

45%

16%

15%

10%

10%

6%

5%

4%

Nothing, not heard from supplier yet

Supplier thinks the complaint is resolved

Still waiting for final response from them

I have given up

The supplier is investigating the problem -waiting for their response

Waiting for the next bill to see if problemwas rectified

Waiting for an engineer

Supplier is demanding money / debtcollection

2016

2018



Figure 30: Resolution gap.

QD2. Would you say your complaint is…? Supplier status supplied in the sample. Resolution gap calculation is the number of complaints considered to be resolved by the supplier but open by the complainants, expressed as a percentage of all complaints considered resolved by the supplier. NB. Sample source has not always matched with supplier stated by respondent; therefore, there may be some discrepancies from the actual %s.

Bases: Complaints considered as resolved by the supplier; Domestic (2018: 2,359; 2016: 2,078; 2014: 2,457; 2012: 2,769; 2010: 2,734; 2009: 2,762), Micro-business (2018: 512; 2016: 320, 2014: 288; 2012: 256; 2010: 274; 2009: 254).

The resolution gap has narrowed marginally since 2016 among most suppliers,

particularly for ScottishPower (44% in 2018 vs. 56% in 2016) and Utility Warehouse (35% in

2018 vs. 54% in 2016). It remains the case that on average the Medium suppliers have a

larger resolution gap (53%) than the largest suppliers (38%). This is mostly due to Utilita

(60%) and OVO (53%), with their records on complaints status being most at odds with their

complainants’ views. See Figure 31 over the page for details.


42% 42% 41%44% 42% 40%

2009 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

46% 47%44%

40%44% 43%

2009 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 31: Resolution gap – domestic supplier breakdown.

QD2. Would you say your complaint is…? Supplier status supplied in the sample. Resolution gap calculation is the number of complaints considered to be resolved by the supplier but open by the complainants, expressed as a percentage of all complaints considered resolved by the supplier.

NB. Sample source has not always matched with supplier provided by respondent; therefore, there may be some discrepancies from the actual %s.

Bases: Complaints considered resolved by the supplier; Domestic (2018: 2,359; 2016: 2,078, 2014: 1,853), Largest (2018: 1,510; 2016: 1,739, 2014: 1,661), Medium (2018: 849; 2016: 339, 2014: 162), British Gas (2018: 204; 2016: 401, 2014: 298), E.ON (2018: 336; 2016: 387, 2014: 292), EDF (2018: 240; 2016: 181, 2014: 275), nPower (2018: 150; 2016: 219, 2014: 272), ScottishPower (2018: 295; 2016: 241, 2014: 298), SSE (2018: 285; 2016: 310, 2014: 256), First Utility (2018: 300; 2016: 128), OVO (2018: 94; 2016: 81), Utility Warehouse (2018: 100; 2016: 113), Utilita (2018: 230), Co-op Energy (2018: 125).

For domestic complainants, lack of communication remained the main barrier to

closing the resolution gap; while for micro-business complainants, lack of clear and

effective communication was the main issue. Figure 32 over the page presents the

range of reasons given by complainants.

Domestic complainants whose cases weren’t resolved yet were typically waiting for further

communication from the supplier or in some cases, still encountering the same issue. For

micro-business complainants, the lack of communication and lack of engagement from staff

are increasingly more of a problem in causing the resolution gap.

35%

35%

43%

53%

60%

31%

35%

37%

38%

43%

44%

53%

38%

40%

U.Warehouse

Co-op

First Utility

OVO

Utilita

SSE

British Gas

E.ON

npower

EDF

ScottishPower

Medium suppliers Total

Largest suppliers Total

Total

Medium

suppliers

Largest

suppliers

(2016) (2014)

(42%) (44%)

(40%) (44%)

(51%) (54%)

(56%) (45%)

(40%) (48%)

(47%) (46%)

(38%) (49%)

(37%) (40%)

(31%) (34%)

- -

(47%) -

(44%) -

- -

(54%) -

Domestic


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 32: Reasons for resolution gap.

QF5. We understand that [named supplier] thinks that the complaint has been resolved. Please can you tell me the MAIN reason why YOU think it has NOT been resolved?

Bases: Complaints considered as resolved by the supplier; but considered unresolved by the complainant; Domestic (2018: 969; 2016: 870), Micro-business (2018: 227; 2016: 137).

Domestic

Micro-business

28%

24%

25%

16%

13%

15%

14%

9%

3%

7%

9%

30%

20%

18%

16%

13%

11%

9%

9%

6%

5%

6%

Lack of communication

Still encountering the same problem withbilling

Have not received an explanation

Not at end of process yet

Poor customer service / unhelpful staff

Did not listen to me/ Do not engage with me

Still encountering the same problem with themeter

Awaiting refund / compensation

Still awaiting a new meter

Awaiting final bill

Waiting for a letter

2016

2018


in 2018 vs. 2016

42%

12%

30%

15%

2%

2%

8%

7%

9%

1%

3%

30%

24%

23%

21%

19%

13%

11%

9%

7%

6%

5%

Still encountering the same problem withbilling

Lack of communication

Have not received an explanation

Not at end of process yet

Poor customer service / unhelpful staff

Did not listen to me/ Do not engage with me

Still encountering the same problem with themeter

Awaiting refund / compensation

Awaiting final bill

Internal systems impede resolution ofcomplaint

Still awaiting a new meter

2016

2018



5.5.3 Resolved complaints and resolution periods

Similarly to 2016, just over half (58% of domestic complainants and 53% of micro-business

complainants) identified their complaint status as resolved. Of all resolved complaints in

both the domestic and micro-business markets, the vast majority (over 90%) were resolved

by the supplier – consistently with previous years, few complaints were resolved by third

parties.

Figure 33: Resolved complaints – third parties.

QD2. Would you say your complaint is…? QE4 And has the complaint been resolved by [named supplier] or the Energy Ombudsman?

Bases: QD2 – All domestic (2018: 3080; 2016:3,049), All micro-business (2018:703; 2016:468). QE4 – Resolved complaints: (Domestic: 2018: 1,778; 2016: 1,698; Micro-business: 2018: 370; 2016: 250).

A particularly important improvement observed in 2018 was the reduction in

complaint resolution periods – a welcome change. However, suppliers continued to be

inconsistent in giving complainants accurate resolution timescales, which were typically

longer than initially estimated. With 43% of domestic and 40% of micro-business

complainants that were given a resolution timescale, fewer than half of them were given

accurate resolution timings (18% of domestic complainants with resolved cases; 16% of

micro-businesses complainants with resolved cases – see Figure 34 over the page).

Resolved

53%

2016 2018

Resolved by the supplier 92% 94%

Resolved by the

Energy Ombudsman3% 1%

Not sure 5% 4%

Resolved by the supplier 96% 92%

Resolved by the

Energy Ombudsman1% 4%

Not sure 3% 5%

Domestic

Micro-business

58%

Resolved

(56%)

(53%)


in 2018 vs. 2016



Figure 34: Resolution timescales.

QB4_12 Please indicate whether or not it happened to you: I was given a date by which my complaint would be resolved. QE1 How long did it take for your complaint to be resolved? QB5 How long did [named supplier] tell you it would take to resolve your complaint?

Bases: Resolved complaints: (Domestic: 2018: 1,778; 2016: 1,698; Micro-business: 2018: 370; 2016: 250)

Ultimately, this again related back to the problems with ongoing communication, or lack

thereof. Complaints taking longer to resolve, compounded with a lack of regular

communication or updates on what’s happening with the complaint, meant that

complainants were completely in the dark until resolution was reached. This could

negatively impact satisfaction with how the complaint has been handled overall.

Domestic resolved complaints

Actual resolution time

% given resolution

timescales

% given accurate

resolution timescales*

2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016

Same day 18% 14% 8% 7% 6% 6%

Within a couple of days 7% 8% 4% 5% 2% 3%

3-7 days / within a week 10% 9% 6% 5% 3% 2%

8-14 days / within a fortnight 11% 9% 5% 4% 2% 1%

15-28 days / within a month 17% 14% 8% 6% 3% 2%

29-56 days / within 2 months 13% 14% 5% 6% 1%3%

Longer than 56 days / than 2 months 20% 30% 6% 10% 1%

Can’t remember the time period 3% 3% 1% 0% 1% -

TOTAL 100% 100% 43% 44% 18% 17%


in 2018 vs. 2016

Micro-business resolved complaints

Actual resolution time

% given resolution

timescales

% given accurate

resolution timescales*

2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016

Same day 9% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2%

Within a couple of days 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0%

3-7 days / within a week 7% 6% 4% 2% 3% 1%

8-14 days / within a fortnight 12% 11% 6% 6% 3% 3%

15-28 days / within a month 17% 14% 8% 4% 4% 2%

29-56 days / within 2 months 13% 14% 4% 4% 1%2%

Longer than 56 days / than 2 months 36% 46% 10% 13% 1%

Can’t remember the time period 4% 2% 1% 0% 1% -

TOTAL 100% 100% 40% 33% 16% 11%



Resolution times in the domestic market have improved for most suppliers since 2016 (see

Figures 35a and 35b). npower and ScottishPower complaints were taking significantly less

time to resolve (on average) than in 2016 – this is a welcome change after the 2016 results

revealing that around half of complainants to those two suppliers waited longer than 2

months for resolution. E.ON has also seen significant improvements.

Figure 35a: Complaint resolution times – largest domestic suppliers.

QE1. How long did it take for your complaint to be resolved?

Bases: All resolved; 2016 Domestic (1,698), Largest suppliers (1,460), Medium suppliers (238), British Gas (390), E.ON (297), EDF (139), npower (219), ScottishPower (138), SSE (277). 2018 Domestic (1,778), Largest suppliers (1,248), Medium suppliers (530), British Gas (201), E.ON (252), EDF (186), npower (171), ScottishPower (190), SSE (248).

Among medium suppliers, First Utility and OVO have significantly reduced resolution times.

Complainants to Utilita were also enjoying (relatively) fast resolution, while Utility

Warehouse has fallen behind.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Can't remember

More than 56 days / Longer than 2 months

28 to 56 days / within 2 months





Same day

14% 18% 14%19%

12% 15% 17% 20%15% 11%

6%13% 12%

19%

3%

15%21%

29%8%

7%9%

7%

4%7%

9%8%

9%6%

2%

4%12%

9%

7%

5%

10%

10%

9%10%

10%10%

6%

10%9% 7% 10%

9%

6%

9%

14% 8%

6%

12%

10%

13%

9%

11%9%

11%

5%

10%10% 14%

9%13%

4%

11%

12%9%

10%

8%

10%

11%

14%

17%

15%

18%

10%

14%18%

20%

13% 18%

16%

20%

14%18%

15%

15%

15%

17%

14%

13%

14%

13%

12%

14%

13%

15%

16%16%

11%

15%

13% 14%

12%

14%

13%

8%30%20%

27%19%

48%

25% 19%14%

26% 23%

52%

23%22% 20%

46%

28%19%

10%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

Total SSEBritish

Gasnpower EDF

Scottish

PowerE.ON

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers





Figure 35b: Complaint resolution times – medium domestic suppliers.

QE1. How long did it take for your complaint to be resolved?

Bases: All resolved; 2016 Domestic (1,698), Largest suppliers (1,460), Medium suppliers (238), First Utility (128), OVO (49), U. Warehouse (55). 2018 Domestic (1,778), Largest suppliers (1,248), Medium suppliers (530), First Utility (212), OVO (51), U. Warehouse (77), Utilita (100), Co-op (90).

Just under half of those who said their complaint was resolved felt that the time it

took for their supplier to resolve their complaint was acceptable – this is a significant

improvement since 2016 (see Figure 36 over the page) and is well aligned with the

shortening resolution periods.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Can't remember

More than 56 days / Longer than 2 months

28 to 56 days / within 2 months





Same day



14%18%

14%19%

12% 15%25%

6% 3%12%

4%

18% 19%

8%

8%7%

9%7%

4%7%

5%

3%2%

8%

8%10%

6%

9%10%

10%10%

6%

10%

9%

6%7% 12%

12%12%

8%

9%

11%9%

11%

5%

10%

5%

17%

5%

6%4%

10%12%

12%

14%

17%

15%

18%

10%

14%13%

13%

8%

20%10%

12%

11%

12%

14%

13%

14%

13%

12%

14% 9%

14%

12%

21%

24%

16% 9%

19%

30%20%

27%19%

48%

25% 27%34%

70%

27% 35%

24%22%

31%

2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018

TotalUtility

WarehouseFirst Utility OVO Utilita

Co-op

Energy

Total

Largest suppliers

Total

Medium suppliers

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

N

O

T

A

S

K

E

D

* Low base (30-100)

** Very low base (< 30)

* * ***



Figure 36: Acceptability of complaint resolution time.

QE2 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the time it took to resolve your complaint was acceptable?

Bases: Resolved complaints – Domestic (2018: 1,778; 2016: 1,698); Micro-business (2018: 370; 2016: 250).

Acceptability of the time it took to resolve the complaint was correlated with overall

satisfaction with complaints handling. This reinforced the need to address timescales to

ensure they more closely match customer expectations. For domestic complainants there

was a 6pp20 increase in acceptability (42% in 2016; 48% in 2018). For micro-businesses the

increase was even greater at 8pp (34% in 2016; 42% in 2018). This is a positive step

towards driving overall complaint handling satisfaction upwards by tangibly reducing

resolution times.

5.6 Impact of resolution status on overall satisfaction with handling

Overall satisfaction with complaint handling was significantly lower among those with

unresolved rather than resolved complaints. This is an important result as it shows that

placing focus on ensuring complaints are resolved (to the complainants’ satisfaction) can

increase overall satisfaction with handling. However, as discussed in section 5.2.2

(Confirmation of the process and next steps) it is important not to artificially reduce

resolution times but ensure that the complaint is dealt with fully. Simply confirming resolution

with the complainant before formally flagging it as resolved can positively influence their

perception of the overall experience.

5.7 Closure and meeting expectations

5.7.1 Expectations following complaint resolution

Most complainants expected to receive ‘something’ from their supplier following the

complaint resolution (94% of domestic complainants with resolved cases and 95% of micro-

business complainants). They were increasingly looking to have the issue rectified (85% of

domestic complainants with resolved cases in 2018 vs. 79% in 2016; 86% among micro-

20 Percentage point – denoting the arithmetic difference between two percentage figures.

42% 34%53%

42%

9%10%

5%

8%

5%

4%

7%

7%

17%21%

14%16%

25% 28%19%

26%

2016 2018 2016 2018

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither / nor

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

51

%

58

%3

4%

42

%


45

%

50

%4

2%

48

%


in 2018 vs. 2016



business complainants vs. 91% in 2016), but they also expected suppliers to engage with

them further. They wanted confirmation that the complaint had been resolved (71%

domestic; 78% micro-business) and more importantly, an explanation of what went wrong

(60% domestic; 60% micro-business). See Figure 37 for details.

Figure 37: Expectations following resolution.

QD1 After making your complaint, did you EXPECT TO receive any of the following?


5.7.2 What complainants actually received following resolution

Expectations were largely met concerning rectification of the problem, a verbal apology and

receiving compensation. However, expectations were not well aligned to reality when it

came to suppliers giving complainants resolution confirmation, a full explanation of what

went wrong, or an apology in writing (see Figure 38 below).

Figure 38: Formal complaint closure in more detail – resolved complaints .

QE5.Have you received…?


54%

42%

36%

30%

2%

74%

55%

42%

16%

35%

32%

4%

9%

Rectification of the problem

Resolution confirmation

An apology over the phone(2015: or in writing)

Apology in writing

Explanation of the problem

Compensation or apologypayment

Something else

Nothing received

2016

2018

63%

40%

25%

17%

4%

75%

63%

38%

18%

32%

30%

2%

9%


Resolution confirmation

An apology over the phone(2015: or in writing)

Apology in writing

Explanation of the problem


Something else

Nothing received

2016

2018


NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED NOT ASKED


in 2018 vs. 2016

79%

39%

36%

33%

5%

12%

85%

71%

60%

41%

39%

35%

5%

6%


Confirmation that thecomplaint has been resolved

An explanation of what wentwrong

Apology letter or email

Apology telephone call


Something else

Nothing expected

2016

2018

91%

46%

42%

29%

6%

6%

86%

78%

60%

45%

37%

36%

4%

5%


Confirmation that thecomplaint has been resolved

An explanation of what wentwrong

Apology letter or email

Apology telephone call


Something else

Nothing expected

2016

2018


NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED

NOT ASKED


in 2018 vs. 2016



These unmet expectations had a clear bearing on complainant satisfaction. For both,

domestic and micro-business complainants, perhaps counter-intuitively, compensation as

such was not seen as essential – it made little difference to satisfaction with what was

received upon resolution, at the end of the complaints process. What did make a difference

was an explanation of the problem, particularly for micro-business complainants who looked

for a full paper trail of this, including a written apology for the issue (see Figure 39 below).

Figure 39: Satisfaction with what was received following resolution.

QE5. Have you received…? QE7 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, that what you received adequately reflects the problems that you'd encountered?

Bases: Complainants who had their complaint resolved and received (Y)/ didn’t receive (N) the following: Domestic: Confirmation (Y=930, N=551), Rectification (Y=1327, N=192), Explanation (Y=616, N=897), Apology in writing (Y=299, N=1,164), Apology over the phone (Y=742, N=752), Compensation (Y=558, N=967). Micro-business: Confirmation (Y=216, N=92), Rectification (Y=274, N=42), Explanation (Y=116, N=195), Apology in writing (Y=68, N=230), Apology over the phone (Y=141, N=170), Compensation (Y=116, N=198).

46%

58%

44%

38%

42%

33%

43%

31%

43%

51%

48%

55%

Confirmation that your complaint hasbeen resolved


An explanation of what went wrong

An apology in writing

An apology over the phone

Compensation or an apology payment

28%

31%

22%

27%

29%

40%

60%

57%

68%

63%

60%

51%







Satisfaction with what

was received at

resolution when the

following were received:


was received at

resolution when the

following were not

received:

Dissatisfied Satisfied

Domestic

50%

54%

42%

41%

44%

31%

29%

35%

43%

44%

42%

53%







25%

29%

18%

14%

21%

37%

66%

57%

70%

77%

66%

53%








was received at

resolution when the

following were received:


was received at

resolution when the

following were not

received:

Dissatisfied Satisfied

Micro-business



6 Impact of complaint handling

6.1 Fair treatment

There was a stronger sense of fair treatment among domestic complainants in 2018

(40% agreed vs 35% in 2016). However, micro-business complainants polarised on this

sentiment. Whist there was an increase in those who strongly agreed they have been

treated fairly (21% vs 16% in 2016), levels also slipped from the ‘neutral’ into the ‘somewhat

disagree’ rating – see Figure 40 below.

Figure 40: Fair treatment.

QG3a_1 Thinking about the way [named supplier] have handled your complaint, to what extent do you agree or disagree that…?

Bases: All domestic (2014: 2,457; 2016: 3,049; 2018: 3,080), All micro-business (2014: 287; 2016: 468; 2018: 703).

The significant increase in the proportion of micro-business complainants who ‘somewhat

disagreed’ that they have been treated fairly by their supplier was driven by the higher levels

of dissatisfaction with British Gas, who also experienced an increase in the number of

customers who were dissatisfied with how their complaint had been handled.

6.2 Complainants’ perceptions of supplier staff

Consistently with 2016, staff ‘manner’ was viewed positively, but their perceived

grasp of the complainant’s problem and general helpfulness scored less well.

Domestic complainants were generally positive about staff attributes. While perceptions of

staff improved across all attributes, the take out remains the same as in 2016: staff ‘manner’

was viewed more positively for politeness, treating complainants as individuals, and

professionalism, but their grasp of the problem, taking the complaint seriously and

helpfulness, were less positively regarded (see Figure 41a over the page).


in 2018 vs. 2016

17% 20% 24%

15% 15%16%

14%16%

16%17% 12%

14%

35% 35% 28%

2014 2016 2018

18% 16% 21%

12% 18% 14%

14%20% 15%

13%8% 12%

41% 37% 35%

2014 2016 2018


Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither /nor

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know



Figure 41a: Perceptions of staff – domestic complainants.

QG2a. To what extent would you say you agree that the [named supplier] staff that you dealt with throughout the complaints process…?

Bases: All domestic (2018: 3,080; 2016: 3,049).

Among micro-business complainants, staff ‘manner’ was viewed as positively as in 2016 –

and particularly for politeness. However, staff understanding of the issue, taking the

complaint seriously, and helpfulness, leave room for improvement (see Figure 41b below).

This is in part related to the resolution gap, where reasons for why it exists are closely

related to how staff treat the complainant and staff’s attitude.

Figure 41b: Perceptions of staff – micro-business complainants.

QG2a. To what extent would you say you agree that the [named supplier] staff that you dealt with throughout the complaints process…?

Bases: All micro business (2018: 703; 2016: 468).

49%

37%

34%

35%

31%

28%

22%

19%

20%

16%

15%

16%

15%

16%

19%

14%

16%

21%

7%

10

%1

0%

12%

12%

14%

7%

17%

16%

22%

23%

20%

Were polite

Treated you as an individual

Were professional

Clearly understood your complaint

Took your complaint seriously

Were helpful

45%

33%

32%

31%

28%

25%

22%

19%

19%

15%

15%

16%

16%

17%

19%

14%

15%

19%

6%

10

%11

%

13%

13%

14%

9%

19%

20%

26%

27%

25%

Were polite


Were professional

Clearly understood yourcomplaint


Were helpful

Domestic

2016 2018

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither /nor Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know


in 2018 vs. 2016

45%

35%

33%

32%

31%

26%

22%

16%

19%

14%

14%

16%

17%

20%

20%

17%

17%

20%

6%

9%

11

%1

0%

12

%11

%

8%

18%

16%

25%

25%

25%

47%

31%

29%

28%

25%

21%

23%

20%

25%

13%

20%

20%

14%

21%

20%

14%

18%

22%

9%

8%

7%

15%

15%

16%

7%

18%

18%

28%

20%

21%

Were polite


Were professional

Clearly understood yourcomplaint


Were helpful

Micro-business

2016 2018

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither /nor Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know


in 2018 vs. 2016



6.3 Switching supplier

As a result of their experience, just under half of complainants have already, are in

the process of, or are planning to switch supplier (this is a significant decrease since

2016 among domestic complainants). Among domestic and micro-business

complainants, 48% and 50% respectively have already switched, are in the process, or are

planning to switch. This is a significant improvement since 2016 when these proportions

were higher, 52% among both. Nevertheless, this is still some way behind 2014 results

when 44% among domestic and 47% among micro-business complainants said they have

already, or were planning to, switch.

Figure 42: Switching supplier.

QG4 Do you plan to switch energy suppliers, or have you already switched, as a result of your experience with this complaint? QG3a_2 Thinking about the way [named supplier] have handled your complaint, to what extent do you agree or disagree that…?

Bases: All domestic (2018: 3080; 2016: 3,049), All micro business (2018: 703; 2016: 468).

In the domestic market, actual switching and the intention to do so were higher for some

medium-sized suppliers (55%) than for largest suppliers (47%). Complainants to npower are

less likely to switch in 2018 (54% vs. 71% in 2016) as are ScottishPower complainants

(52% in 2018 vs. 59% in 2016). This is a welcome change following the negative results in

2016.

Yes - already

switched

Yes - in the process of

switching

Yes - planning to

switch

No - not planning to

switch

Don't know / Not sure

yet

23%

3%

26%

44%

5%

19%

2%

27%

48%

4%20162018


20%

3%

28%

35%

14%

22%

3%

24%

43%

7%

20162018

D M

2016 52% 52%

2018 48% 50%


in 2018 vs. 2016



7 Key drivers of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with complaints handling

7.1 Overview of the approach

Two types of Key Drivers Analysis (KDA) were used to identify what drives (has the greatest

influence on) satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the complaints handling process. The use of

tactical and perceptual KDAs is important as they reveal understanding of where the

journey fails for complainants (tactical), and how the perceptions emotionally impact upon

them (perceptual). Both tactical and perceptual factors influence satisfaction levels, so their

relative interplay is critical to fully understand what’s driving satisfaction with the complaint

handling journey.

The two KDA approaches use different analytical techniques and require different inputs (in

this case, it means different types of questions used in the analysis):

• The tactical KDA approach looks at the influence of the absence or presence of

particular events in the complaints journey on satisfaction (based on ‘Yes’/ ‘No’/ ‘Not

applicable’ questions, such as:

✓ Did the supplier update you on the progress of your complaint?

✓ Did the supplier provide you with a date by which your complaint would be

resolved?

✓ Did you receive an explanation of what went wrong?

It uses the difference in mean complaint handling satisfaction scores among

complainants who have experienced particular aspects of the complaints journey (said

‘Yes’) vs. those who have not (said ‘No’). The larger the difference in mean satisfaction

scores among the two groups, the stronger the influence of that event on satisfaction

with complaint handling. Direct action can be taken to address the elements which are

shown to drive satisfaction downwards or upwards by more systematically introducing

them into the complaint journey, or limiting complainants’ exposure to them, depending

of the event in question. The full list of events/ elements included in this analysis can be

found in the Technical Appendix, it includes 30 distinct elements, all of which form the

complaint journey as shown in Figure 11.

• The perceptual KDA approach looks at the influence of perceptions on satisfaction with

the way the complaint has been handled (e.g. scale rated statements) such as:

✓ Agreement that the time it took to resolve the complaint was acceptable

✓ Agreement that the staff they dealt with were polite.

This approach uses a traditional Key Drivers Analysis method, linear regression, to

estimate whether changes in how the scale rated statements are answered would result

in changes in satisfaction with complaint handling. It produces an importance measure

for each of the investigated statements/ elements to act as an indicator of strength of

impact on satisfaction. Nine statements were investigated. The low number of

statements (in comparison to the number of tactical elements) is a function of research

design – i.e. upon investigation, those 9 statements were found to be most relevant to

the complaints journey. While attitudes reflected by these statements still require



attention, due to their subjective nature and level of difficulty to address directly, steps

can be taken to positively influence them (rather than tactically change them).

The two KDA approaches are therefore not directly comparable; however, they produce

similar outputs that enable the identification of four types of outcomes as presented in

Figure 43 below. The relative positioning of the tactical and perceptual elements in the four

quadrants allows us to understand which tactical journey elements and perceptions have a

similar effect on satisfaction, and how they may be therefore interlinked. The observations

drawn from the outcomes of the KDAs described on the following pages illustrate these

connections.

Figure 43: Tactical and perceptual KDA analysis framework.

In this chapter, the key drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the complaints

handling process are presented and discussed. Comparisons are also drawn with 2016

analysis to investigate where improvements have been made and which elements require

further attention. Drivers analyses are conducted separately for domestic and micro-

business complainants.

Care has been taken to overlay the drivers analyses with the complaint journey so as to give

clear direction on which stage(s) of the journey fails the complainants.

PRIORITY FOR ACTION

• Elements seen as important to the process but

performing below expectations and adversely

affecting the experience

• Need to be addressed to avoid further negative

influence on satisfaction

BUILD ON

• Strong performance and seen as important –

elements which drive satisfaction upwards

• Strengths to build on to ensure continued

positive influence on satisfaction

MONITOR

• Elements which are not of importance to

consumers at the moment and which perform

poorly

• Need to be monitored to ensure impact on

satisfaction and performance continue to be

aligned

MAINTAIN

• Elements which have low influence over

satisfaction but perform well

• They are hygiene factors where performance

needs to be kept a constant level but no further

improvements are necessary in this area

Performance (satisfaction or % who experience the event)

Re

lati

ve

im

pa

ct

on

sa

tis

fac

tio

n (

imp

ort

an

ce

)



7.2 Domestic: Drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with complaint handling

The outcomes from the Key Driver Analyses for domestic complainants are presented in

Figures 44 and 45. Overall, outcomes support data presented in Chapters 5 and 6.

Figure 44: Tactical drivers for domestic complainants.21

Bases: All domestic complainants (3,080).

Figure 45: Perceptual drivers for domestic complainants.11

Bases: All domestic complainants (3,080).

21 Elements at the bottom of each list in 2018 (with a letter in brackets next to it) indicates a movement. The letter

in brackets indicates the colour of the quadrant the element moved from e.g. (G) from green, (B) from blue, (A) from amber and (R) from red.

MONITOR

• Providing a complaint reference number

• Being told w here to seek independent

advice

• Receiving compensation

• Making decisions there and then (R)

• Directing to complaints procedure on

w ebsite (R)

BUILD ON

• Telling me the steps that w ill be taken

• Using my preferred contact method

• Not having to chase to get an update (R)• Being asked for contact preferences (R)

• Receiving a formal acknow ledgement (B)

PRIORITY FOR ACTION

• Being given a resolution date

• Being told how long each step w ill take

• Dealing w ith one person

• Supplier getting back w hen agreed• Supplier updating regularly

• Offering to send procedures for free

• Receiving an explanation of the problem

• Informing complaint can be escalated (A)• Receiving an apology (A)

• Having a named contact (A)

MAINTAIN

• Staff not using jargon

• Supplier having correct contact details

• Supplier having record of complaint

• Supplier having full complaint history• Not having to escalate

• Not having to make a further complaint

• Not having to contact Ombudsman

• Not having to contact Citizens Advice

• Supplier not sending letter referring to Ombudsman

• Receiving resolution confirmation

MONITOR

• Staff understanding my complaint

• Ease of registering the complaint w ith the supplier (B)

BUILD ON

• Staff professionalism

• Staff treating me as an individual (B)

PRIORITY FOR ACTION

• Staff helpfulness

• Staff taking the complaint seriously

• Acceptability of the time it took to resolve the complaint

MAINTAIN

• Staff politeness

• Ease of f inding initial contact details



7.2.1 Domestic: Drivers of satisfaction – summary observations

The drivers of satisfaction are broadly consistent with 2016, focusing primarily on the

experiences early on in the process. Being able to easily find the right contact details, being

greeted by polite and professional staff who told them what steps would be taken to get the

complaint resolved (experienced consistently by just over half of domestic complainants) in

a clear and understandable language, set the right tone for the rest of the process for most

complainants. It is the smoothness of the early interactions that helped uplift overall

satisfaction with how the complaint has been handled.

Formal complaint acknowledgement by the supplier helps complainants understand where

they are in the journey and that their case is being looked at. Lack thereof can signal to the

complainant a lack of acceptance that the issue exists and automatically set a negative tone

for the rest of the journey, setting other negative elements in motion, e.g. chasing for an

update/ confirmation, thus its presence is a soothing step forward. The same applies to

receiving a confirmation of the resolution. While seemingly simple, formally agreeing with

the complainant that the complaint has been resolved serves as a form of closure and an

acknowledgement that the issue existed and that it has been fixed to the complainants’

satisfaction. Without that, both, the issue being fixed, and to the complainants’ satisfaction,

can be questioned by the complainant.

Similarly, acknowledging complainants’ preferences for contact and adhering to them when

re-contacting them demonstrate the appreciation of the individual and the willingness to

make their experience more agreeable. It is a fairly simple element of the process but can

go a long way as it shows that the supplier is putting some effort in to satisfy the customer.

Reducing effort the complainant has to make also contributes to increasing overall

satisfaction with complaint handling. This partly relates to not having to escalate the

complaint further (e.g. to a more senior member of staff or externally – some of which can

be avoided by providing the complainant with a resolution confirmation). Reduction of effort

also means providing the complainants with enough information about what is happening

with their complaint to reduce their need to chase for updates, and this appears to have

been the case, to an extent, in 2018.

Other factors, such as the supplier having the correct information about the complainant and

the complaint itself upon recontact are hygiene factors – they appear unimportant when

present, but their absence could gradually drive satisfaction down.

7.2.2 Domestic: Drivers of dissatisfaction – summary observations

There are many more drivers of dissatisfaction than there are drivers of satisfaction, owing

to more complainants being quite or very dissatisfied with the handling process despite the

significant uplift in overall satisfaction.

The main themes contributing to high levels of dissatisfaction with complaint handling

concentrated around resolution periods and being informed of the resolution progress on an

ongoing basis. Complainants felt that the time it took to resolve their complaint was

unacceptably long (though less so than in 2016), despite a reduction in overall resolution

periods, which was exacerbated by the aforementioned lack of ongoing (unprompted)

communication from the supplier.



A problem still exists with providing complainants with a clear view of how long the process

will take. A lack of knowledge can cause anxiety and leads complainants to start setting

their own expectations, which can often be unrealistic and far from reality.

This is not helped by the fact that most don’t receive information about alternative resolution

routes or what the complaint resolution process looks like (that they could refer to later down

the line), leaving them uncertain about what should be happening and when (though the

need for this has decreased in importance in 2018).

While fewer complainants had to chase for updates (and not having to chase is a driver of

satisfaction in 2018), many still felt that the supplier did not update them on the progress of

their case enough for the complainant to know what was happening. And while there have

been significant improvements in suppliers getting back to complainants when agreed, still

fewer than half experienced this. Thus, there is considerable room for improvement in

keeping complainants in the loop about the progress of their case. This may be in part

exacerbated by not having a named contact they can refer to when they have a question

about the progress of their complaint – the effort of having to speak to someone new every

time makes the process more onerous. This is felt more strongly when there is a perception

that some staff are not taking the complaint seriously enough and are therefore not helpful

in getting it resolved – this may be related to some staff not understanding the problem fully

as there seems to be no issues with politeness and treating the complainants as an

individual.

Closure is also a problem area for many complainants. The main issue was not receiving an

explanation of the problem as well as an apology for the issue occurring in the first place.

Both help to reassure the complainant that the issue has been dealt with and is unlikely to

happen again. Lack of an explanation may leave the complainant feeling that the problem

could very easily come back as they have no reassurance that it has been fixed.

7.2.3 Domestic: How the results compare to 2016 outcomes

Improvements and maintained performance

Professional and polite staff who at the start of the journey continues to be a strength

among domestic suppliers and drives satisfaction upwards. There have been significant

improvements in fewer complainants having to chase for updates, which helped uplift overall

satisfaction levels – this was one of the key areas for improvement highlighted in 2016.

Staff making decisions there and then was one of the key areas in need for improvement in

2016 – while there has been little movement in this, this particular element of the journey

has decreased in importance for complainants suggesting that they’d rather have their

complaint resolved effectively and definitively than rush it, and potentially have the problem

re-surface later down the line.

Areas requiring further attention

Staff taking ownership of the complaint and taking a proactive approach to resolve it were

the key areas for improvement since 2014, and at an overall level, this has not changed

since then. Taking the complainant seriously remains to be one of the key areas for



improvement, as does taking a proactive approach to resolving the complaint (staff

helpfulness).

Being informed that the complaint can be escalated is a new area in need of attention in

2018 – in line with the improvements seen this year, complainants want to be reassured that

the complaint will be resolved adequately by someone who understands the complaint.

Among those who escalated their complaint, there was some concern about staff being able

to understand the issues raised.

In line with previous years, being provided with resolution timescales, and suppliers

regularly updating the complainants about the progress of their case remain as key areas in

need of improvement.



7.3 Micro-business: Drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with complaint handling

Figures 46 and 47 provide the drivers outcomes for micro-business complainants. The key

drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction align closely to the findings in the domestic market.

Figure 46: Tactical drivers for micro-business complainants.22

Bases: All micro-business complainants (703).

Figure 47: Perceptual drivers for micro-business complainants.17

Bases: All micro-business complainants (703).

22 Elements at the bottom of each list in 2018 (with a letter in brackets next to it) indicates a movement. The letter

in brackets indicates the colour of the quadrant the element moved from e.g. (G) from green, (B) from blue, (A) from amber and (R) from red.

MONITOR

• Making decisions there and then

• Receiving compensation

• Having a named contact (R)• Being told w here to seek independent

advice (R)

BUILD ON

• Staff not using jargon

• Telling me the steps that w ill be taken

• Using my preferred contact method

• Supplier having record of complaint• Receiving a resolution confirmation

PRIORITY FOR ACTION

• Being given a resolution date

• Being told how long each step w ill take

• Dealing w ith one person

• Supplier getting back w hen agreed• Not having to chase for updates

• Supplier updating regularly

• Receiving an explanation

• Being asked contact preferences (B)

• Directing to complaints procedures (A)• Offering to send procedures for free (A)

• Informing complaint can be escalated (A)

• Receiving an apology (A)

MAINTAIN

• Receiving a formal acknow ledgement of

complaint

• Providing a complaint reference number

• Supplier having correct contact details• Supplier having full complaint history

• Not having to escalate

• Not having to make a further complaint

• Not having to contact Ombudsman

• Not having to contact Citizens Advice• Supplier not sending letter referring to

Ombudsman

MONITOR

• Staff understanding my complaint

• Ease of registering the complaint (B)

BUILD ON

• Staff professionalism

• Staff treating me as an individual (B)

PRIORITY FOR ACTION

• Staff helpfulness

• Acceptability of the time it took to

resolve the complaint

• Staff taking my complaint seriously (G)

MAINTAIN

• Staff politeness

• Ease of f inding contact details



7.3.1 Micro-business: Drivers of satisfaction – summary observations

As with domestic complainants, being provided with information on the steps that will be

taken to resolve their complaint in clear language is one of the key areas that need to be

built on to increase satisfaction. Receiving a resolution confirmation at the end of the

process has a similarly positive effect. There has been no change in this since 2016.

Micro-business complainants are also positive about follow up contact with the supplier. If

their preferred channel of communication is used (typically telephone), and staff have

access to their complaint information, that provides a structure to the process – this is

underpinned by staff professionalism and drives satisfaction upwards.

7.3.2 Micro-business: Drivers of dissatisfaction – summary observations

The key drivers of dissatisfaction among micro-business complainants are similar to those

within the domestic market. They focus around what complainants consider to be

unacceptably long resolution periods and a lack of ongoing communication or

communication about likely timescales. This creates an information gap that micro-business

complainants fill by repeatedly chasing the supplier for information (though significantly

fewer micro-business complainants did this in 2018 than in previous years, the impact of

having to do it at all is still strong and drives dissatisfaction with the complaint handling

process).

This becomes particularly problematic when they are dealing with multiple members of staff,

who often appear unhelpful and to not take the complaint seriously enough. The issue with

staff seems to be permeating the entire journey as increasingly, micro-business

complainants are finding it more difficult to register their complaint because it is not being

acknowledged or understood when it is first raised.

7.3.3 Micro-business: How the results compare to 2016 outcomes

Improvements and maintained performance

Perceptions of staff treating the complainants as individuals has improved since 2016 and is

a strong driver of satisfaction. This suggests that the complainants appreciate their

willingness to engage with them but clearly see a gap in their ability to actually resolve the

issue (based on perceptions of lack of understanding). In line with 2016, this suggests that

micro-business complainants are more concerned with effectiveness of resolution than they

are with the emotional impact of how they are dealt with.

Areas requiring further attention

In 2018, the key change from 2016 focuses on staff. While initial response staff seem polite,

there is a clear issue with micro-business complainants finding it more difficult to register

their complaint and finding that staff are not taking their complaint seriously enough. It was

previously an area of strength and has since become an area that needs urgent attention.

Providing complainants with information about the complaints process that they can refer to,

and informing them that their complaint can be escalated, are also of greater importance to

complainants in 2018 highlighting the need to have the formal process locked down and

followed, particularly when it comes to micro-business complainants who seem to seek

better organisation and formality of the process.



8 Conclusions and recommendations

8.1 Summary of findings – domestic and micro-business markets

▪ Overall satisfaction with complaint handling has improved significantly among domestic

and micro-business complainants alike. Encouragingly, worst performers from 2016

have shown significant uplifts in overall satisfaction, though there remains significant

room for improvement.

▪ The start of the journey works well for most complainants, with significant improvements

reported in 2018 in setting expectations at the start of the process (e.g. providing

complainants with a resolution date). However, at an overall level, customer

expectations are still not well managed as only around a third receive this information.

This can negatively impact how the rest of the complaints journey is experienced.

▪ Micro-business complainants are experiencing some issues, particularly early on in the

process, with staff seemingly unable to fully grasp the issue and thus deal with it

appropriately. This is one of the key areas for improvement among micro-business

suppliers.

▪ Suppliers are becoming more reliable and getting back to complainants when agreed

(though there is still room for improvement), which means fewer have to chase for

information. For those that do re-contact the supplier, the experience is fairly smooth,

with some improvements needed around the full complaint history being kept on record.

This is needed particularly in the absence of a single point of contact.

▪ Suppliers still don’t provide enough information about alternative resolution routes. Lack

of awareness of alternatives makes the process feel more stressful (if closure is not

reached relatively quickly). Some escalate the complaint to more senior staff as they

feel that quality of response from staff they were dealing with was inadequate, which in

some cases was driven by the lack of understating of the issue by initial response staff.

▪ A minority of unresolved complaints are referred to third parties and the resolution gap

has narrowed marginally, however, the lack of ongoing communication (and thus

complainants being in the dark about their situation) continues to prevent formal

complaint closure.

▪ Resolution times have shortened overall, which has had a positive impact on the overall

experience, however, there is still a disconnect between initial timescales provided to

complainants (if at all) and the actual resolution period. This is particularly an issue for

complaints that take longer to resolve, where cases may be more complex. It is those

cases that a more structured management system would be beneficial to reassure the

complainant that the supplier is dealing with the issue.

▪ Closure is important, and complainants look for an explanation of what went wrong –

compensation is less important.

▪ Complainants face a polite but often unhelpful response from staff who don’t seem to be

taking their complaint seriously enough (particularly among micro-businesses). This can

cause stress and may lead complainants to switch, though significantly fewer have done



so compared to 2016 – this is likely to be related to increased overall satisfaction with

handling, helped by shorter resolution times and other improvements.

8.2 Evidence of good practice in domestic and micro-business markets

Satisfaction was driven by professional staff encountered at the start of the journey,

and more consistency with getting back to complainants when agreed. Staff played an

important role in the complaints handling process. While there are still many improvements

to be made in this area, professionalism with which complaints were dealt with was a key

driver of satisfaction, together with staff being more reliable than in 2016 and getting back to

complainants when agreed. This helped reduce the information vacuum, and effort

complainants needed to make, to get their complaint resolved. This treatment needs to be

injected further into the process more consistently to drive satisfaction with complaint

handling upwards.

Figure 48: Journey elements driving satisfaction with complaints handling.

8.3 Evidence of areas for improvement in domestic and micro-business markets

Dissatisfaction was driven by a lack of ongoing communication, made worse by lack

of clarity around resolution timescales. There have been some significant improvements

in how complaints were handled, however, the areas for improvement remain consistent

with 2016. There is still an issue with a lack of ongoing (and proactive) communication from

suppliers. This was the main driver or the resolution gap and is exacerbated by lack of

clarity around resolution timescales. This was not helped by some staff seeming unhelpful

and unconcerned by the complainants’ cases when contacted. Furthermore, upon

resolution, complainants expected to receive an explanation of the problem, and a lack

thereof further contributed to an information vacuum potentially created earlier in the

process, when ongoing communication was lacking. The lack of ‘proper’ closure gave the

complainants little or no confidence that the complaint had been fully resolved and the issue

won’t happen again.



Finding

contact

details

Lodging

complaint

Registration /

confirmation

of complaint

Subsequent

contact with

supplier to reach a

problem resolution

Referral to Energy

Ombudsman

Confirmation of

process / next

steps, and

timescales

Escalation

Formal

resolution

confirmation

Resolution

Explanation of what

went wrong

Apology

Compensation



Figure 49: Journey elements driving dissatisfaction with complaints handling.

8.4 Some recommendations

▪ Automating provision of complaint handling procedure information/ making it

more accessible.

If asked, the complainant may refuse the Complaint Handling Procedures as they don’t

necessarily know what information they contain. Having the Procedures would increase

the likelihood that complainants are clear(er) on what to expect and feel a sense of

transparency about the process (this booklet/ webpage could also include information

about third party advisers and redress schemes). Suppliers should inform complaints, at

the start of the process, that Complaint Handling Procedures are available, where they

are, and what information they contain. Thus, if needed, the complainant might refer to

them. Automating that process, rather than having initial contact staff send it out, could

make this process smoother.

▪ A more structured approach to keeping complainants updated.

Either an online system, an update in writing or via SMS, or a scheduled call, depending

on contact preferences, would ensure the complainant does not feel ‘in the dark’ about

the progress of their complaint and feels reassured it is being dealt with. Even if there is

no update, proactive (i.e. scheduled) communications from the supplier can ease the

frustration with the process by reducing the number of times complainants have to

chase for information. This would also decrease suppliers’ handling costs per complaint.

▪ Formalising complaint closure by logging it only if the complainant gives their

explicit permission to do so.

This could help reduce the resolution gap, however, it could mean that resolution

periods increase further as complainants may feel that their problem has not been

adequately addressed. Here, closer and more rigorous adherence to CHS would help,

and ensuring the supplier seeks to resolve the issue fully the first time. This will in turn

avoid future complaints about the same problem and increase efficiency on the

suppliers’ side.



Finding

contact

details

Lodging

complaint

Registration /

confirmation

of complaint

Subsequent

contact with

supplier to reach a

problem resolution

Referral to Energy

Ombudsman

Confirmation of

process / next

steps, and

timescales

Escalation

Formal

resolution

confirmation

Resolution

Explanation of what

went wrong

Apology

Compensation



Quadrangle Research Group

The Butlers Wharf Building

36 Shad Thames

London SE1 2YE

+44 (0)20 7357 9919

www.quadrangle.com

Date post:	17-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	15 times
Download:	0 times

Customer satisfaction with energy supplier complaints ... · satisfaction with the way their...

Documents